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 using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To Rules
 * 1) If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
 * 2) Anyone can comment on proposals whether logged-in or not, but only registered users can create or vote on proposals.
 * 3) Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 6) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
 * 7) If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
 * 8) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 9) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 10) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
 * 11) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. In other words, one option must have 50% + 3 of all votes cast. This means that if a basic two-option proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options require more precise counting of votes to determine if an extension is necessary.
 * 12) Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
 * 13) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 14) If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 15) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
 * 16) There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
 * 17) Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
 * 18) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. - ===[insert a title for your proposal here]=== [describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals)

====Support====
 * 1) [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk Page Proposals All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.


 * For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

Rules
 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Delete Count Bleck's Army. (Discuss) Deadline: March 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Instal the CategoryTree Extension
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

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal
 * 2) Good idea, but Tucayo's right. Ask Porple. But  he'll probably implement it before this passes, if I know Porple.
 * 3) Per all. Really good idea.
 * 4) I don't quite understand this, but from what I do understand, it's a good idea.

Comments
You need to bring that up with. --

Create transcript subpages for Mario cartoons episodes

 * 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.

Removals
None at the moment

"There is currently no text in this page."
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.

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!
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.

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)

"Only Warning"
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 25, 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).

Change autoconfirm criteria
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.

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)

The Quotes Sections and Their Redirects
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, 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.

Comments
Well, what are the benefits of deleting the redirects? 173.55.155.46 23:15, 11 March 2013 (EDT)