MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/32

Add a Navbar to all Navigation Templates
DO NOT ADD NAVBAR 1-10

I see Wikipedia have it, and so many wikis. That's Why should we get one.. After A lot of work I finally got it working!

Usage:(after been created) Here s where we should put this:

To see the how the template works.. Try this code on real template and preview it but don't save.

Proposer: Deadline: February 2, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - "Everyone else does it" is not a good reason to start doing something. Personally, I've always found that feature of Wikipedia's templates to be ugly and distracting anyway. Our templates work fine and look good the way they are now.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) &mdash; Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per all, especially Walkazo; we're trying not to imitate Wikipedia here.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) I completely disagree with Walkazo here, but I have my own reasons for not supporting this. Honestly, I don't find any use for that template. Sure, it could be convenient at times, but only for the rare edit on a mere change at times. Again, I find this addition a little superfluous if no one is going to use it anyway.
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) Per Walkazo.

Comments
Here is an example: @Walkazo, At least that will make editing faster, won't it? and it will be more flexible.
 * Flexible? Templates don't need to be edited all that much, and anyone who is gonna be mucking around with them really ought to have put some thought and care into it anyway, so taking a couple steps to get there should be no skin off their backs (not that it's even an onerous process to begin with). -

In my opinion, despite the lack of valid arguments in the proposal, this may be implemented in the templates, as it is just an add-on (or option) creating a quick way to go to the templates to work with and fix them. It results for some users and new ones (I'm included sometimes) a bit tedious to go first to the article's page to find the template list in order to edit the chosen one, specially those articles that have overly long navigation templates, like Mario's page and other characters, regardless the activity of changes that undergo navigation templates. -

Surfing Blooper
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER

In Super Mario Sunshine in Ricco Harbor to appear three colored Bloopers who Mario can ride for ottenure two Shine Sprites. Since they are the important character I would say to create a page dedicated to them. P.S. These Bloopers not have an official name so I think if you decide to create the page should add the Template:Anotherlanguage.

Proposer: Deadline: February 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Comments
I don't think this warrants a regular proposal. You should've just made a TPP either here or here. Aokage (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2013 (EST)


 * Per above. Also if we didn't know the official name of the subject, we wouldn't put on the page unless we have an official name which comes from a non-English language. If we make up a name, then  is used.  21:29, 9 February 2013 (EST)


 * Or here or here.--
 * Or just go ahead and make the page. (Also, per YoshiKong about the template business.) -

Unprotect the Help pages
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER Withdrawn to discuss with administration instead.

I am proposing that we move the protection level of all pages in the Help namespace to semi-protect, so Autoconfirmed users are able to edit them. I see the need to fully protect our Policy and Writing Guidelines pages to have all changes restricted to none but the Administrators who maintain their clarity and integrity, but it is not the same with Help pages. Help is something that everyone should be able to give and contribute to, because we must admit that our Help pages are pretty out of shape at the moment. Help:Image lacks a lot of information, Help:CSS has a template on it, and Help:Template has been under construction for well over a year. We should give regular users the liberty of contributing some information to the Help pages if they wished. However, we cannot avoid the fact that the Help pages may be more precarious to vandalism, but any acts of ill intent can be easily reverted.

Proposer: Deadline: February 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) Regular users should be able to contribute to them as well.
 * 4) This allows more people to contribute.  To those of you worried about vandalism, vandals are typically blocked before they reach autoconfirmed status.
 * 5) Per BowserJunior.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per proposal.

Redirects to the Various "Mario References" Articles
DO NOTHING 0-3-9

This is something that I've noticed for a while and has bothered me ever since, and I know that I've already used that intro for a proposal. Anyways, on the various articles linked to in Template:References, some of these have redirects that are meant to link to a specific game or movie or book or whatever in the article. I'll have what should be a full list in the comments section. The problem with this is that the redirects are highly inconsistent. Some of the articles don't even have any of these kind of redirects, while the rest only have a few of them. To fix this, there are two possible options: either deleting all the redirects that we currently have, or creating redirects for all the games, books, movies, etc. that currently don't have a redirect. I would much prefer just deleting the redirects that we currently have for one simple reason: there are far too many potential redirects. Is it really worth it to create a bunch of redirects that probably won't be used that often anyways? To do it properly, the video game references would all requires anchors placed for them, which seems like a waste of time for me. Still, we currently have redirects out there, and we shouldn't be inconsistent with them, so we have to do something.

Proposer: Deadline: February 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Create Redirects

 * 1) Per Porple.
 * 2) Porple owns the place so he should get his own way
 * 3) Per Porplemontage.

Do Nothing

 * 1) - It'd be a waste of time and effort to create redirects for everything, but some things do deserve redirects. For example, Bowser being in Wreck-It Ralph was a big deal for lots of people, and the climax of The Wizard centred around SMB3; games that feature Mario characters in prominent cameos also deserve redirects, like Punch-Out!! or Sim City, and things like music of Internet series/projects explicitly about Mario could use 'em too. In all these cases, it would be reasonable for folks to assume we have info about these things because of their prominent Mario content, so it makes sense to have redirects (on the other hand, it's hard to justify a search for Homestar Runner, The Simpsons or This Hour Has 22 Minutes, which only include Mario as part of hundreds of their pop-culture references). Of course, what's "prominent" is largely subjective, but in situations like this, it makes way more sense to make redirects on case-by-case basis, rather than trying to slap on either ill-fitting blanket policy.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo.
 * 6) - Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Walkazo, and myself in the comments.

Comments
List of Mario references in animated television - List of Mario references in live-action television - List of Mario references in film - List of Mario references in video games - List of Mario references in music - List of Mario references in publications - List of Mario references on the Web - List of Mario references in advertisements - List of Mario references in theater - List of references in the Mario series - --GreenDisaster (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2013 (EST)
 * Super Plucky-o Bros.
 * You're Skitting Me
 * The Wizard
 * Wreck-it Ralph
 * The Simpsons Game
 * Tetris
 * The Adventures of William Beamish
 * Animal Crossing
 * Animal Crossing: Wild World
 * Animal Crossing: City Folk
 * Alex Kidd in Shinobi World
 * Assassin's Creed II
 * Asterix & Obelix XXL 2: Mission Las Vegum
 * Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator
 * Big Brain Academy
 * Brain Training
 * Birdo (song)
 * Birdo song
 * None
 * Super Mario Rescues The Princess
 * None
 * None
 * None

The redirects are not unnecessary, so they should not be deleted. It doesn't matter if only some exist, but if that bothers you, create them all. They could help someone find what they're looking for, so it's a terrible idea to waste our time deleting what has a potential upside and no downside. -- 12:10, 10 February 2013 (EST)


 * To the people who want to create all redirects: What Porple said was that it doesn't matter if only some exist. If it bothers us, he said, create them all. This us refers to the community as a whole, and this proposal determines the majority opinion, and thus the community's opinion. It doesn't look to me like Porple was just telling us he wants them all to be made, just that he didn't want them deleted. I agree that consistency is best, but also that such a blanket solution would not be as effective. This is simply due to the fact that some of these references are very minimal, to the extent that I doubt anyone would be looking to find all the times Donkey Kong is briefly mentioned in passing, while other references, such as the ones noted by Walkazo, are clearly prominent. A method of determining these references' importance would be better, as prominence is, as Walkazo said, subjective, but until this is implemented I believe that redirects need only be made when the reference is noticeable and substantial.

Force Show Preview before saving an edit to a page
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER

Title says a bit enough, there should be a little notice when editing a page that could tell the user: To prevent consecutive minor or major edits on the same page or section, you must click Show preview before saving the edit. and it blocks the Save page button until the user clicks Show preview to see the edited page or section. This could be applied to unconfirmed users and anonymous editors. There's a JavaScript code here that must be imported into the MediaWiki:common.js page, but this extension is best to use for the case (smart users might disable JavaScript and bypass the force preview function). The JavaScript one lets you, through the code shown, modify who doesn't get affected and who does, for instance:

1: 2:

Code 1 doesn't force the show preview to autoconfirmed users, sysops, bureaucrats and autopatrolled users, code 2 forces the show preview to everyone.

The extension version is more secure and forces to use the Show preview button, even with JavaScript disabled.

Think it is a good idea?

Proposer: Deadline: March 1, 2013, 23:59 (G.M.T.)

Support

 * 1) – Prevent consecutive edits on the same page: no cluttering of the recent changes page.

Oppose

 * 1) It's a good idea to do the preview, but shouldn't be forced.
 * 2) - I don't think the preview button should be forced - it would be very bothersome to have to click the preview button when making similar edits to a bunch of pages (i.e., adding  to a group of pages), not to mention that it would just hinder edits - people can simply click the button and then save the page without seeing if the changes are constructive.
 * 3) Users know when they should do the preview and when they should not - it can't be forced, its just crazy. If this happens, I wil quit the wiki.

Comments
I'll quit the wiki too if this crazy idea is actually carried out.

I WASN'T suggesting that this would be enforced to EVERY user here. It would affect ONLY the anonymous users and users without having the email comfirmed yet. You did real all the proposal, right?
 * And you DID read the second part of my vote, right?

Series' articles
USE WIKITABLES 15-0-0-0-0

There is some discrepancy on this wiki involving around the series' articles and it is that all those articles completely mismatch with each other when it comes to listing the installments in the series. Some get listed in a very different way which, in my opinion, is actually a mess. Many articles use a wikitable that lists the release year, a breif description, and some game ratings, the Mario (series) article is a good example; other simply list the year release, the system or console and a link to the beta elements for said game, the Mario Kart (series) article is pretty obvious; few articles got lazier a simply have a paragraph describing the game and the boxart on a thumbnail, the Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) article says hi; and finally the rarest of all: an infobox for every game is used instead, the Mario & Luigi (series) article is the case here. Seeing how this messy is, I got into the conclusion of using a single format for every series' article, I propose choosing one single format for all these articles as I don't see a reason to have multiple and different formats when we can just simply have one.

Proposer: Deadline: February 24, 2013, at 23:59 GMT.

Use wikitables

 * 1) - I personally think this is the best option, and because changing the whole Mario (series) article would be a lazy process.
 * 2) - consistency's good.
 * 3) This is the best organized one. There is a reason we use tables much to organize information in this wiki. All the rest either look lazy, cluttered, or just plain ugly when it comes to displaying information.
 * 4) - This is the best way to organize the information. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per Glowsquid.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) It would make these articles more organized. Per all.
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) &mdash; Per Byllant's proposal and Glowsquid's voting reason.
 * 15) • not a bad idea!

Comments
Should anything else be added into the wikitables, aside the features already listed? -
 * I think it's fine the way it is. All necessary information is already there. In my opinion, adding anything else would probably make the information redundant or not needed.

Increase the file size limit for OGG videos
INCREASE LIMIT 8-5

A problem I've noticed when trying to deal with cutscene recordings from games is that while they can usually be compressed to under 10 MB, the quality suffers especially if the cutscene is a few minutes long (this is especially noticeable with GBA games).

However, my main issue is not the inability to upload higher quality cutscenes, but rather it being outright impossible to upload some cutscenes regardless of quality. I had planned to upload some from Mario Super Sluggers along with some other Wii games, but even with extremely low video quality (64kbps bitrate), the files were around 15 MB. It would be nice to raise the limit to around 25 - 30 MB (50 MB or so would allow for longer cutscenes, but is our priority getting them uploaded even with very low quality, or supplying them at a reasonable (but not exactly HD) quality?); I don't know how much of a strain this would put on the server, but in my opinion, raising it for these videos (I don't know if it's possible to raise the size limit just for certain file types, but I doubt people would start uploading 25 MB images anyway) would be helpful.

Proposer: Deadline: February 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Increase size limit (an appropriate amount can be discussed in the comments)

 * 1) - Per proposal. Somewhere around 25 - 30 MB would be good enough for me.
 * 2) I've had similar issues in the past involving video size restrictions, so if we were able to increase the file size limit then I'm supporting it.
 * 3) &mdash; If Porplemontage confirms that this would be possible and that it wouldn't be too much of a weight on the server, then I support Turboo's proposal. Expanding the file size limit for these videos can allow us to be more inclusive with our coverage of cutscenes on the wiki itself. In the end, the fuller coverage is something we should strive for. We could always try to regulate, through proposals, any specifics to cut down on abuses of the expanded file size (such as restrictions on files not being used for the mainspace articles and whatnot).
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per SMB.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per SMB.

Do Nothing (keep the size limit at 10 MB)

 * 1) It's much easier to link to the video, and that limit is there for a reason – for some people, this would make loading times horrendous, on my iPod anything larger than 4mb can cause safari to crash.
 * 2) - Per BowserJunior.
 * 3) I don't see the need for this, especially if we can use YouTube as an external link to these OGG videos.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) The idea is nice but it will cause a lot of crashes though it and the file size is enough.

Comments
You should ask Porplemontage about this: he's the one who calls the shots on file limits. Either way, seeing as YouTube is already pretty much the go-to place for cutsenes, afaik, it seems easier just to keep externally linking, rather than burning our server space on this kinda thing. -
 * I kind of figured it would be up to him, but I don't know how strict we are on YouTube; do we just forbid people from using the tags in mainspace articles and allow linking of cutscenes in the External Links section? -
 * Yeah, still no tags on the articles: it makes them too large and cumbersome to load. External links are one way to do it, but I think using references would be even more effective. -

@BowserJunior: The only way this would affect loading times on certain pages is if the videos were loaded on the page (they aren't)/if people started uploading huge images and placing them on pages if the size limit were increased for every file type. I can't say I know how overall server strain/load times would be affected by larger files, though. -

Quick identification for patrollers, sysops, etc.
IMPLEMENT FEATURE 15-0

We all know that there's different ranks of users here at the SMW. It'd make sense that we'd want to know who's who. We can already see who's a patroller, sysop, etc. by going to a special list or sometimes going to their user page. But if you want to know who's who quickly for a specific reason (i.e. a bureaucrat for a name change) then there should be some sort of identification on or next to their name on the Who's Online template, or better, wherever their name is displayed. I was thinking maybe a specially-colored name, a picture of some sort next to their name, or at least an acronym. (ex. BC for bureaucrat, PT for patroller, etc.) Because really, who (other than the staff themselves, of course) is going to be able to name every single SMW staff member right off the top of their head, hmm?

Proposer: Deadline: February 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I've had trouble looking at who's a staff member before; I almost got just an ordinary user to change my name. More reasons of mine above.
 * 2) We do have something like this on the forums, where users with ranks are given different-colored profiles. I think it would be good to implement this here as well in case new users needed to report something to an admin asap, but haven't quite learned who's who yet. As long as we are able to implement this feature, I support it.
 * 3) Not a bad idea. Maybe this could help new users to find help with a adm.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) That should definetely be there, because if new users enter the wiki, they do not know who can help them and who is experienced. Anyways, that should be there without an argument.
 * 7) - Yeah, yeah, per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) &mdash; Although Porplemontage has already endorsed this idea and plans to implement it, I'd like to indicate my support for the proposal. Per Goomba.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Per SMB.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) - Per all.
 * 15) - Per SMB.

Comments
Just voted, but I've noticed that you singled out Autoconfirmed users in the title. Unlike admins, I don't believe they need special identification on Who's Online. -- 02:49, 19 February 2013 (EST)
 * Now that I think about it, you're right... -- 02:53, 19 February 2013 (EST)
 * It might be a good idea to find out whether this sort of thing is even possible. The last thing you want to happen is to have this proposal pass and have no way of implementing whatever means of additional identification is decided upon.
 * This is possible and I will do this. -- 03:16, 19 February 2013 (EST)

Just curious, but any word on Autopatrolled users?
 * No point. They're just regular users who make good edits and/or who were admins: being autopatrolled simply makes the admins' job easier, and doesn't affect other users at all. The point of this (as I understand it) is that users can either get to know the staffs' names, or more importantly, find one in a pinch if there's a flame war, or a troll attack or some other problem that needs a current admin's attention. Having too many colours (or icons or whatever) muddies it up and makes it harder to find what you need, so it's best to keep it straightforward and only single out the current staff, I think. -
 * So would we settle on one color for the staff or different colors for each rank within the staff? -- 00:17, 20 February 2013 (EST)
 * I'd says different colors for each rank. -- 02:02, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Just got a good idea on what icons to use if this passes.

We should use the SMG Prankster Comet icons. (,, , , and .)

You guys like the idea? Goomba 03:10, 20 February 2013 (EST)


 * This is just my opinion, but I think colored names would be better. The icons are a bit too tall for the names on Who's Online, and visually whether the icon is put on either side of the name, it might get confusing to look at. I think staff should be given this color: Username . A red is easy enough to distinguish from the blue: complementary colors. -- 03:49, 20 February 2013 (EST)
 * That looks like a red link (page doesn't exist). Might get confusing. Aokage (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2013 (EST)


 * I think using different colors is best (imo, the icons would be going a little overboard), not too sure about red though; as Aokage said, I'd feel like I was looking at red links every time I saw our names. I was thinking green, like how it is on the forum. 04:04, 20 February 2013 (EST)


 * Green's good. -- 05:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)


 * Well this feature has been implemented. Looks great. -- 15:57, 20 February 2013 (EST)
 * I agree, and I have no doubt that this will prove useful.


 * I've got a suggestion for it. Where it has the legend for what the colors mean, can we link to the respective MarioWiki page for that rank? -- 16:07, 20 February 2013 (EST)


 * Great idea! -- 16:16, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Wow, my first proposal and it passes unanimously. :D 19:28, 20 February 2013 (EST)

So... since this proposal has already been put into effect, is there any point in leaving it open?
 * I thought about archiving it yesterday, but folks were still discussing the colours and whatnot, so I decided against it. Things have slowed down now, but ehh, I don't care either way; dunno how others feel, tho - I can only speak for myself. -

Identification in user pages
DO NOT IMPLEMENT 1-9

My idea is that there should be a identification in user pages, like the star identifying Featured Articles. The idea of having colored usernames is a good way to identify who is the proprietor, administrators, bureaucrats and patrollers, but you need to find the username in the Who's Online template or in the history of an article. Also, some users haven't confirmed their accounts, but their usernames doesn't appear colored. To solve this, something like the star in featured articles appear in patrollers, etc. user pages and in non confirmed users, it appear in their talk page. The icon should be a mushroom for patrollers, a fire flower for administrators, a star for bureaucrats, a poisonous mushroom for unconfirmed users, something like that. If someone put the cursor above the icon, a text in a white box saying "This user is a XXX. Click for more information." or "This user didn't confirmed his account." appear, and if someone click in the icon he will be redirected to the Patrollers, Patrollers, etc. page. To unconfirmed users, nothing happens when someone click in the icon.

Proposer: Deadline: March 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) We don't have to go to the history of an article or wait to the user be online to see who is bureaucrats, administrators and patrollers. This also make easy to see who is confirmed and who isn't confirmed.

Oppose

 * 1) - I don't think this is necessary, seeing as there are links on the recent changes to the Patrollers, Administrators, and Bureaucrats pages on the line "Wiki staff".
 * 2) - Per TPY.
 * 3) Per TPY.
 * 4) - Per TPY.
 * 5) – There's the name coloring based on the group the users are in to simplify the things, but to be honest I don't like them…
 * 6) - Honestly, I find this to be an unneeded feature; we already have this implement in the "Who's Online" list, as someone stated earlier.
 * 7) Per TPY. In addition, most of the admins currently have userboxes on their pages indicating the position they hold (with a link to the appropriate page).
 * 8) Per Mario4Ever.
 * 9) - Per all.

Comments
Some user may not see these links in the Wiki staff, because it's colored in orange, purple, green and light blue, and other links are in dark blue.
 * Well, I do agree that it's kinda hard to see that those are links, but I still don't think the icon system is necessary - it could be done in a much simpler way. ---

Change the "The Identifiers of Articles" policy to be decided on a case-by-case basis
CHANGE POLICY 7-0

I recently left this comment about article identifiers and brought it up a few days later in the chatroom. Glowsquid and Marshal Dan Troop informed me that would be going against what this proposal has laid out. This effectively means edits like these, which were made by the creator of the original proposal, are violating policy right now. I propose we change this policy so that it encourages users to move pages based on common sense, not an unclear one-size-fits-all rule.

Proposer: Deadline: March 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal. A policy page for this (instead of just remembering it and enforcing it that way) would be helpful as well.
 * 2) Per Turboo. Consistency is usually desired, but game identifiers aren't always the most suitable for article titles.
 * 3) Per Turboo.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - Per Turb.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per proposal

Comments
About the policy page, I think it's best to outline the guidelines at Naming. -- 03:17, 22 February 2013 (EST)

I think we can nail this down into a formula. If an identifier is needed, the text in parenthesis is determined by: -- 03:38, 22 February 2013 (EST)
 * 1) What the thing is. For example: Dribble & Spitz (souvenir) is correct.
 * 2) If the same type of thing appears in multiple games, use the game title. For example, World 1-1 (New Super Mario Bros. 2) and World 1-1 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) are both levels from different games. We cannot use World 1-1 (level) for obvious reasons because we need to differentiate between games.
 * 3) If just the game identifier is misleading as to what the thing is, use the game title followed by what the thing is. For example, assume there is a "Dribble & Spitz" souvenir in two WarioWare games. We would use Dribble & Spitz (WarioWare: Twisted! souvenir) and Dribble & Spitz (WarioWare: Smooth Moves souvenir) because without the added "souvenir" text, no one would guess the article was about a souvenir and not Dribble & Spitz themselves.


 * I agree with these guidelines. -- 03:57, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Quick question: can I ask why the three articles you mentioned in violation of the policy?


 * I originally thought they weren't, but the two admins I mentioned in my proposal (Glowsquid and Marshal Dan Troop) told me that they were violating policy by not following the one-size-fits-all rule. -
 * " I know that some of these need to be done in a case-by-case basis, but the vast majority of these are quite simple". I indicated in my proposal that I knew that a all-encompassing rule wouldn't work, but the exceptions are much more rare than the ones that follow the rule. It seems kind of unnecessary to create this proposal, in my opinion.
 * Pretty sure I said that following it as if it was an one-size-fits-all rule would be asinine.--Glowsquid (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2013 (EST)
 * I wasn't entirely sure about that, sorry. I do think Shoey said that it would be a violation, though, so uh... I guess asking other admins for their opinion would be good? I see the identifier suggestions were already implemented on MarioWiki:Naming, so I don't know if this proposal still serves a lot of use. -
 * I don't see how they'd be a violation either: just having game names would be confusing, and as GreenDistaster pointed out, the proposal has a nice built-in allowance for case-by-case exceptions to the rule for situations just like those articles. -

"Only Warning"
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER

If a user commits a Level Three Offense that gets them a (this tells them that they should clean up their act immediately, and refrain from any innapropriate behavior or they will be blocked), the term "last warning" may confuse them. For this reason, I think that the term used here should be "only warning" (like "This is the only warning you will recieve.....) The template would look something like this.

Proposer: Deadline: March 18, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think it is good, "Last warning" is meant to be more serious. And I don't think it is confusing.
 * 2) - I really doubt the term "Last Warning" has confused any user, as it gets the point across nicely that the user should change their behaviour immediately.
 * 3) The title "Only warning" makes it even more confusing and the title "Last warning" is perfectly understandable to have and it's not confusing.
 * 4) Per all, the "Last Warning" should be clear enough because that also means "cease and decist your violating actions immediately, or else your account's editing abilities will get revoked".
 * 5) - Per all. "Last Warning" is perfectly clear, dire-sounding and straightforward to use, as opposed to muddling things up with two templates for last-straw warnings ("Last Warning" for stacked offences and "Only Warning" for automatic Lv. 3 issues). It's worked fine for years: don't fix what isn't broken.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) Per all. Wasn't there a proposal about this earlier?

Comments
Just to let you know that your draft template contains a typo ("recieve" instead of 'receive'), and the sentence is not very well built.

@ThePremiumYoshi: Yes, I am planning to fix that; it's rather poorly written because I made it in a hurry. For those of you who did not get what I mean: let me explain more clearly: On Wikipedia, they have an "only warning" template which says "This is the only warning you will recieve", which is given if they see someone commiting an offense so bad that breaking the rules again will result in a block. Or maybe I accidentaly put my personal opinion as a proposal...........
 * Yeah, we know what you mean, but we're trying our best to not look like Wikipedia. As some others have stated (Walkazo said it the best), the "Last Warning" notice is still clear enough in regards to folks that have committed a severe breach of the policy (including repeat offenses).

Create transcript subpages for Mario cartoons episodes
DO NOT CREATE 2-8


 * Draft: User:Ultra Koopa/Subpage

Read the draft above to know more about this project. In my opinion, these pages can be useful if the reader is looking for a specific part of a TV show episode, instead of the overall plot or synopsis, like, if someone is looking for quotes in an episode, they can't read the entire part in the text on the main episode page so, the transcript pages can help on giving extra details and info about them.

Proposer: Deadline: March 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal
 * 2) Looks like a nice idea. Other wikis that are related to cartoons (like the SpongeBob wiki and The Fairly OddParents wiki) have this kind of pages and they look alright, so I don't see a problem. I'd  be willing to help to create the articles.

Oppose

 * 1) - Maybe someday we could try to get transcripts, but not with that coding: it's way too tedious and confusing. Simple bulleted lists with bolding and italics would be the only practical way to go about this - none of that template stuff. But even then, it'd be a huge amount of work, and you'd need a bunch of dedicated people to help complete it within a reasonable time frame.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) I wouldn't oppose making transcripts, but the proposed format is pretty Not Good.
 * 8) Per all. The transcript you put up is difficult to read.

"There is currently no text in this page."
DO NOT IMPLEMENT 1-9

At the "Who's Online", every user who is not a staff of the wiki, have a blue link, even the users which doesn't have a userpage. At other pages, pages with links for pages that doesn't exist, have a red link. I think that links for userpages that doesn't exist should be in red.

Proposer: Deadline: March 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Blue is meant to indicate non-admins, not whether someone has a userpage or not.
 * 2) Per Yoshikong.
 * 3) The number of users without userpages fluctuates much more frequently than the number of admins/users with positions. I'm fairly certain that color-coding users without userpages into Who's Online would require near-constant attention and updating, and it's not worth the effort, especially since usernames corresponding to users without userpages are shown in red in the Recent Changes.
 * 4) - Per YoshiKong. The current Whosonline setup is much clearer than if red links were added to the mix.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per YK. I'm really sure about it, and I'm thinking about it in the recent changes too.
 * 7) Per YoshiKong.
 * 8) Per YoshiKong.
 * 9) Per YoshiKong.

Comments
Too bad it's already been done.

How would like to have red represent not autoconfrimed and blue being autoconfrimed.


 * I was just testing that I can automate this without the need for CSS (and it works). It's probably a good idea for the sake of consistency. -- 04:24, 9 March 2013 (EST)

Affiliation BACK!
DO NOT RESTORE 2-14

There was a previous proposal to remove the Affliction part of the Character-Infobox template, I agreed with that, but I think it is still good with another name, Like : "Related" or something like that. It's very good for quick links.

Proposer: Deadline: March 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - You're basically proposing to bring the "Affiliation" parameter back, just with a different name. Just changing the name of the parameter does not make it any less redundant. Your argument of how it "provides quick links" is not valid, because most of the pages linked on the parameter can very easily be found on the page, sometimes even on the introduction of the article.
 * 2) Per TPY.
 * 3) Per TPY.
 * 4) - Per TPY and the proposal that removed the Affiliations in the first place.
 * 5) Per Walkazo. The Relationships with Other Characters section already has this information covered.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) - Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per TPY and Walkazo.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
Well, before you want to return it, you have to keep in mind how the "affiliations" (not "afflictions" -_-) parameter was removed in the first place. It was removed because it was silly, undefined, and very subjective. It was also pretty redundant, since we already have a "relationships with other characters" section. If you want to return it, you have to be specific in defining "relations". For this proposal, you haven't defined it. You just want to rename it. Simply renaming won't change the problem. 173.55.155.46 13:46, 9 March 2013 (EST)

Change autoconfirm criteria
DO NOT CHANGE 3-10

In my opinion, I think it is a bit too easy to make five edits in four days, especially if a certain page has a lot of typos and the user wanting autoconfirmed status edit-spammed. We should change it to more like 10 mainspace-only non-minor edits in a week, or something similar (this could be discussed in comments), because if we don't, we could become a big target for vandalism and spam.

Proposer: Deadline: March 19, 2013 at 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Proposal.
 * 3) Per BowserJunior.

Oppose

 * 1) As said in the comments, they have been changed recently, so we should'nt undo that.
 * 2) - The requirements were loosened at the same time anonymous IPs were granted the ability to edit, both of which was meant to make the wiki more open to new editors, which is good for activity levels and traffic. We're a big wiki: we can handle vandals. Besides, if someone really wanted to get autoconfirmed, it'd be just as easy to get ten edits as five, and they'll still run into the temporal requirement - and that four-day wait should be enough to cool most rash actions at that point.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per everything.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) - Per Walkazo.
 * 10) ('m not autoconfimed but i have a diffrent reason then "i'm not autoconfimed which would be a stupid thing to say) i agree with 10 edit's but none of the other's.non miner edit's can be rediculos.and a week is long

Comments
The Autoconfirmed requirements were actually changed last year from what you are proposing, to our current system. So are you proposing that we overturn that change? 01:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
 * Well, I wasn't here last year, so I wouldn't have known, but I guess so. 01:34, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

BowserJunior, WiKirby is a much smaller, way less active Wiki, so I guess it's the main reason it is more difficult to be autoconfirmed.

The Quotes Sections and Their Redirects
DELETE THE REDIRECTS 7-0

While scrolling through the redirects of random articles, I came across Bowser (quotes). This redirect was originally an article that listed the most notable of Bowser's quotes, and has since been turned into a redirect to the quotes section on Bowser's article. Both Mario and Luigi have corresponding redirects. The problem I have with this is that not only do the quotes sections merely link to the quotes category, there are other articles like Princess Peach, Wario, and Waluigi that have quotes sections and yet do not have redirects to them. Now, if we were to apply a blanket policy and give a redirect to all of them, that wouldn't be too hard to apply, but is it worth it? As of now, I think that it would be best to simply delete the current redirects that we have. Maybe if the sections listed notable quotes (like Wario and Waluigi's articles do), I could be swayed otherwise, but I just don't see someone actually searching "Princess Peach (quotes)" or whatever. Besides, if we're going to create redirects for the quote sections, why only the quotes and not, say, the statistics or the gallery? I don't think it would be wise to leave the three current quote redirects that we have (Bowser (quotes), Mario (quotes), and Luigi (quotes)) alone, but I'll still offer it as an option along with the other two: deleting the ones that I have listed previously, or creating redirects for everything else.

Proposer: Deadline: March 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Delete the Current Quote Redirects

 * 1) I think that this would be the best option.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) They are just unnecessary redirects.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal. No one will search for these.
 * 7) - Per all.

Comments
Well, what are the benefits of deleting the redirects? 173.55.155.46 23:15, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
 * They're unneccesary, so we don't keep them.

Instal the CategoryTree Extension
DO NOT INSTALL 3-9

This extension is helpful as it provides a dynamic view of the wiki's category structure as a tree. It allows Users to navigate Categories faster, and allows the user to know subcategories without navigate to that category.. In my opinion, I say It's good Idea to have it with us, But I see we should have the arrows instead of the default icons. See to the Usage section of the extension page.

Proposer: Deadline: March 14, 2013, 23:59 GMT Extended: March 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal
 * 2) Per all. Really good idea.
 * 3) I don't quite understand this, but from what I do understand, it's a good idea.

Oppose

 * 1) - When asked, Porplemontage didn't think it was needed. I'm inclined to agree. Maybe we could look at it again down the road, but right now it doesn't seem worth it, especially seeing as our categories are such a mess (which is my fault for procrastinating on getting the new system up and running - after this semester, it's my first priority, I swear).
 * 2) - Porple didn't want it, 'nuff said.
 * 3) Per Walkazo and Tucayo.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) - Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per Walkazo.

Comments
You need to bring that up with. --

Remove Per Votes When Original Vote is Removed
CHANGE THE REMOVAL PROCESS 12-0

This is probably a minor issue, but there is something in the vote removal process of Featured Articles that bothers me. When you create a Removal of Votes section to delete one vote, you also have to create other sections to remove all the votes that merely Per that vote.

My proposal is to simply make it so if one vote is deleted, all the votes that per'd it without any other reason gets automatically deleted. This should streamline the removal of votes process.

Proposer: Deadline: March 23, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) If my vote gets deleted, for instance, all votes that state simply, "Per LeftyGreenMario" should be deleted.
 * 2) Makes sense: per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) Ditto.
 * 8) Per All.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per proposal.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
Will this apply to proposals also, or just featuring articles?
 * Proposals don't really have a section where people vote to remove a vote. It can apply to proposals as well, but it's not very common for people to delete their own votes compared to the featured article process.
 * But still, per votes would be removed if an opposer (or supporter of a different action) switches their vote, correct?
 * That already happens with proposals--'Per'ing a nonexistent vote is an invalid reason and so the vote will be removed.--
 * Nope, that's not what happens at all. If you no longer stand by your vote but someone's "per"ing it, you can't remove your vote: you can only slash it out using, so that the "per" votes aren't invalidated. After all, even if you no longer believe in what you said, others may still consider it to be a valid point. The courtesy policy discusses when it it okay to remove comments and votes, and when they should simply be slashed out. -
 * But what if the vote is changed because the point is invalid? I can vaguely recall a few instances in which a reason for opposing was mentioned and resolved, but unnoticed by said opposer.
 * Hopefully they'll check back in on the proposal and see they should reconsider their vote (that sorta situation is why you shouldn't just vote on something and forget about it). If they don't come back on their own, you can always contact the misled voters directly (unlike cold-calling people to vote on your proposal, this isn't vote soliciting and shouldn't get you in trouble). -