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: 5pm
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 8pm
 * 5) Sunday: 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) The original proposer calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary.

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)

Welcoming Committee
I propose a Welcoming Committee  that will be run by yours truly. The welcoming comtiee will make sure Every User gets a welcome, welcoming will not be restricted to just Committee members everyone can help. The Committee will also help users with user stuff and mariowiki stuff, a Committee member will have had to be aroud for a while, be able to handle stress, and great knowledge of WikiSyntax. I see how this Committee will do no harm, besides all it will do is help.

Proposer: Deadline: 15:00, 24 June

Support

 * 1) Let's help them!
 * 2) Hk -- Erm... Yeah. Newbies are important. We all go through that stage.
 * 3) – wasn't sure at first, but the continual help afterwards convinced me.
 * 4) – Although a lot of the committee goals seem like simple user duties, newbies do indeed need help and a team dedicated to answering their questions seems like a pretty good idea.
 * 5) n00bs are the future of our wiki! with SOS gone we need more users contributing.
 * 1) – Although a lot of the committee goals seem like simple user duties, newbies do indeed need help and a team dedicated to answering their questions seems like a pretty good idea.
 * 2) n00bs are the future of our wiki! with SOS gone we need more users contributing.

Comments
Bean, you need a better reason than that, and I already said we could help newbies without a committee, Hk.
 * I end up helping everyone, it'd be nice to have some guys that can help too, and if we have an "unofficail Comitee" why not make it offical, this will end up helping the wiki and making it better.
 * Well, I don't think it should be run by anyone. A committee is usually run by everyone. And if everyone can participate, it isn't really a commitee.
 * But they don't, and now they'll ask the people in the Committee.
 * Why do you need to be in charge? Something like this won't benifit from having a ruler.
 * Everyone comes to me anyways >_>, and besides there has to be someone in charge.
 * Why does there need to be someone in charge?

So I can add comittee members, cause you don't want a new user showing up and asking someone for help but they don't know what to do. all I'm saying is I want people who know what their doing to be the comitttee. And the leader (Me) make sures that they know what their doing...You don't members who can barely help themselves on it.
 * But you said anyone can be on the commitee. 17:39, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * No I believe I said anyone can welcome ;)...
 * PLUMs, when I first got here, I was really confused. Help pages?  Didn't know where they are and I still have to request help because there are still so many topics not covered by those pages, but are instead on Wikipedia in "wikispeak".  I dunno.  Basically, if I had gotton one of those nice templates when I came, it would have helped somewhat.  But, yeah.  23:10, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh. Well, I still don't see a reason why the commitee can't vote on new members and needs a leader.

Well if this get added, I'd certainly consult the other guys before adding new members...
 * Oop. I was assuming the idea would get fleshed out as it was implimented.  Maybe what we should do is have a trial period?  00:18, 19 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: June 25, 18:33 (EDT)

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.
 * 1) 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.

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)

Miscellaneous
None currently