MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg 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
 * 1) Actions that users 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) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 14) 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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 15) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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 creating a PipeProject.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). 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 a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Ask A Sysop
Whenever someone has a question, the first person the ask is...a sysop! However, sometimes, the certain sysop isn't available. The wiki should have an "Ask A Sysop" section where people could post a question and a sysop would answer it. This would be much easier than the tedious process of going from talk page to talk page to post your question.

Proposer: Deadline: July 27, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per above!
 * 2) I am Zero! Hmmmmm........ great idea, alright I'll support it, it would be an easier way of asking questions. Zero signing out.

Oppose

 * We already have the FAQ talk page and the Main Page talk page, so we don't need another one that's basically serving the same purpose. The pages I mentioned also have the advantage that "regular" users can answer there as well. This is good because they might be faster than a sysop, and still know the right answer.
 * 1) - Maybe a userbox (I don't get why you don't say an userbox) that says; this user is an experienced member of the Mariowiki. That userbox links to the Category of experienced users and you ask the active members of that category, but no page for sysops only; I know several users (Me, SMB, WarioLoaf, MeritC, Tucayo, M&SG and Arend) that know a lot of stuff and this category would deprecate them of the opportunity to spark a hope in the hearts of new users by answering their questions to receive that glowing feeling of self-accomplishment. I personally know that I helped WeegeeO and Doopliss Rocks out and I felt good about myself those two nights and I'm not a sysop, if we made this page; less users would come to me (and the aforementioned others) and give me that feeling.
 * 2) Per all. :D
 * 3) - Aye per Time Q, there is the FAQs page to reply some common doubts and the main page to tell somebody what's happening around the wiki. I think these two resources are enough, and, in my opinion, don't consider sysops as gods XP.
 * 4) Per Marioguy1 (And Super Mario Bros.' comment below). I've helped YellowYoshi127, Baby Mario Bloops and Doopliss Rocks and felt good about it, and I'm not a Sysop either.
 * 5) - Per Time Q. We have MarioWiki talk:FAQ and Talk:Main Page, there really isn't a need for other pages.
 * 6) - Per everyone else. You can ask sysops things on their talk page, the FAQ page, the main page talk, forums, chatrooms, etc.

Comments
One suggestion, a minor one that won't change my vote: Perhaps we should include a list of sysops at the top of the page? 16:21, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * In addition to what coincollector said, Mediawiki created the rank sysop to be users who are trusted with a few extra buttons, they did not intend for them to be the leaders if the wiki, no. They created Bureaucrats to be the leaders of the wiki and they still want other users to have just as much authority as sysops just less power!

Removals
''None at the moment.

The Subspace Emissary
The Subspce Emissary needs its own article. It would be good because the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article is SO long.

Proposer: Deadline: July 22, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Marioguy, Luvluv was right to propose it here, you are only supposed to split with community approval.
 * 2) It'd be an easy split, and it would clean up the huge article that is Brawl.
 * 3) - Well sorry, I thought she just wanted to make the article, not split it! Why wouldn't I support it? Per all.
 * 4) - Agreed, it would be nice to actually go through the Brawl without reading for days. Please make the split.
 * 5) Per Baby Mario Bloops
 * 6) - Per all!

Comments
Then make it, don't propose, just do it

It's been its own article before. Then, Knife redirected it with the comment: "ummm.. it is Brawl's adventure mode, and we decided to keep modes in the game articles, as they retract a lot of content from it. (also, read the name under Subspace Emissary, it does indeed say adven" --

I'm not sure but won't this affect Brawl's FA status?
 * Is Benji's oppose vote even legal? I'm sorry Benji, I think your vote should be removed. There is no real reason for it. 22:49, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Betaman: This cannot affect the FA status of brawl unless a user proposes to unfeature it, any such user should instead vote against it here so that we don't have to go through the long process of voting there. I might even ask an admin to delete that request for unfeaturing if it is in the week after this proposal passes due to ignoring the proposal and trying to make us go through a giant process!

Amend No-Signature Policy
Ok, I guess I'll be the first to propose to amend the No-Signature Policy. I have looked around and have already seen an incident happen when it came across signing: A particular system of signing that is often referred to as Signing Without a Signature (S.W.A.S.). I would like to propose the question: For pages that follow the No-Signature policy, do we allow "S.W.A.S.", or do we not allow it?

Proposer: Deadline: July 23, 2009, 17:00

Allow S.W.A.S.

 * 1) I am Zero! See, I did one, well to the point, it's just a harmless saying/idea (I hope I spelled harmless right). Another reason why to allow users to use S.W.A.S. is, in some cases users forget to put there username and that is where a S.W.A.S. comes in, when someone reads the S.W.A.S. they will know who wrote there, so far everybody who use S.W.A.S. are different from each other, and plus it's another way to express themselves. Plus a S.W.A.S. doesn't alter votes or counts so there is no point to remove it. P.S. S.W.A.S. actually stands for Signature Without a Signature, and I was also originally going to call it S.I.A.S (Signature In A Sentance) but it didn't sound correct. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Zero
 * 3) - Per all!

Don't Allow S.W.A.S.

 * 1) I don't think we should allow it for the No-sig policy because it is easier to access a user's page and talk page if they provide links as opposed to just words.
 * 2) - Point 1: Simply on four pages of the wiki, FI, FA, PipeProjects and here, you are supposed to sign with a link, four pages. On those four pages, JUST THOSE FOUR, could we please have links to user pages (and from that extent, talk pages). It is four pages, can users not even sacrifice those four pages? Point 2: Doing this will improve how the page looks, having some users sign like this and some like this doesn't look good to me and I'm sure none of you like it either. If we did this, more users would look at the page and see the real info on the page instead of the ugly looks. Point 3: It will allow us to distinguish between votes, just look for the blue writing and there's the end of the vote. More than once, I've passed on to another vote thinking that it was the same vote because it had no blue link at the end of it. The blue links help determine where the end of a vote is by changing the color of the text. Users will (not should, will) learn that when you see blue writing, it means link!
 * Since signing in the XYZ format will be still allowed if this proposal passes, I think I can support the elimination of "S.W.A.S." (i.e., simple text without a link to the author's user page). Links are always helpful, so it's a good idea IMO to "force" users to put them. Sorry for calling this "ridiculous", I just didn't quite understand the proposal.
 * 1) per Time Q.
 * 2) - Sorry for supporting S.W.A.S., I didn't understand the proposal. Example would still be allowed, and links would help distinguish between votes, as Marioguy1 said, and they'd be helpful if you need to get their talkpage.
 * 3) - Per Marioguy.

Comments
Once again, this is related to a particular incident, I am not inventing the idea for no reason. Also, I'm not voting just yet, I want to see the way most users vote.
 * Marioguy, that was the incident I was referring to.  LOL 
 * It was? OMG!
 * Yeah. I used this page right here (what a small world we all live in).

Marioguy1, please give a reason for your vote.
 * By the way, Time Q, I do not actually have an opinion on whether it should be allowed or not, I just want it added to the Policy so no more confusion goes on. Also, S.W.A.S., if I'm correct, uses no coding with no links. The policy already considers signing with  Whatever  a correct form of signing, perhaps I didn't quite understand the situation... 18:32, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
 * I did give a reason, I yelled at a guy and then got yelled at, I don't like being yelled at!
 * I don't believe not wanting to get yelled at is a valid reason to oppose the proposal.

I don't get what's this proposal is about. Honestly. --Glowsquid 07:13, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
 * SpriteYoshi voted because of Marioguy1's invalid reasons. Should we remove both the votes?
 * I don't know, do what you think is right.


 * Is my vote O-K now?
 * @Yoshario: I didn't either, that's why I asked for it to be removed, I realized that I was wrong in letting my feelings take control of my vote changing it to the worse of the wiki. @Glowsquid: This proposal is proposing the users cannot sign like this and must sign like this. @SpriteYoshi: Pers are never not OK unless you are pering an invalid vote, which you are not. I hope I covered everything.
 * Baby Mario Bloop, do you know what we are talking about? SMB is not proposing that we use signatures on pages, he is only proposing we use links. It will not mess up the page, it will turn the end of each vote blue; distinguishing between the votes.
 * Might I mention that I am not proposing to specifically eliminate SWAS, I am proposing to amend the policy, whether to include SWAS or not. This doesn't mean that this would ban it from every page, rather, it would eliminate it from the pages that follow the policy. 17:05, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Also, Marioguy, might I point out that the No-Signature Policy is followed on more than three pages, another example being the PipeProject page. 17:09, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I only knew about three. Anyways, I know we are referring only to those few pages; see my point 1 thing in my vote. Are you going to vote SMB?
 * Not really, I understand both points of view, I can't make up my mind anyway. 17:25, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't think other users understand that I am trying to promote organization in articles by opposing this proposal. The blue or red writing marks the end of a vote, it's very simple and gives users an easy view of who made the vote; the one with the blue writing did it! If you can find any points to make no links, state them here and I will change my vote (other than server stress because blue writing is not going to crash your computer).
 * You have a point. I will reconsider my vote tomorrow.
 * Thank you, now could you please remove the point about me in your vote?

Yoshario, since you are referring to my vote and I removed it, please check if your vote still applies.

Marioguy: Might I mention, and delete this if I'm wrong, but he provided another reason with his vote as well. He just forgot to remove the per part of his vote. 22:25, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * See my vote
 * Ok, I see that. He provided another reason along with his vote. His vote is outdated, what he means is per Time Q's old reasoning. I don't think he would "per" something that opposes his views: All in all, I don't think that it qualifies moving his vote to the oppose section. 22:37, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Fine, I withdrew my proposal for removal but (there's always a but), if he does not update his vote by tomorrow, I will put back my proposal for removal (trust me, I have the whole thing saved)
 * Okay, I understand. He should update his vote, that gives him enough time to change it. 22:43, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

This is Zero's vote minus the big writing, I changed all S.W.A.Ss into something else and corrected his grammar

Note: the underlined parts I don't understand:

Another reason to allow users to use the ability to sign without a signature is; in some cases users forget to put their username and that is where Signing without a signature comes in. When someone reads the no-signature comment, they will know who wrote there. So far everybody who signs without a signature is different from one another and plus, it's another way to express themselves. Plus, signing without a signature doesn't alter votes or counts so there is no point to remove it.

Basically from that I get these points:
 * 1) It is a way for users to express themselves; no links.
 * 2) Removing it would be pointless because nothing happens when you don't remove it.

I have an argument for both of these:
 * 1) Yes but this is four pages, I'm sure they can express themselves on other pages instead of where it counts.
 * 2) Actually, as you can see in my vote, it is not pointless! Turning the writing at the end of the sentence blue or red shows the end of a vote and provides a pinpoint for all users to find who actually made the vote.

I think that Zero (just like: BMB and Time Q) misread the proposal and interpreted it to mean that you are no longer aloud to just write a username, you must link it. BMB thought that meant that images would now be aloud in signatures and mess every thing up and Time Q (this one I'm not so sure on) thought we would have to use the template. I will move this comment to "Removal of Support/Oppose Votes" tomorrow afternoon if I do not get a qualifying response from another user as to why he made these points.

I'm not sure what SWAS is. Is it something like..... *insert random text here* Luigifreak out. (with no links to the userpage at all in the message.) Also will this remove the blurbs that some people put at the end of all there messages, but still sign at some point?
 * No.

Upcoming Tournaments
The wiki has suffered greatly when it comes to user tournaments, either they are cancelled due to inactive leadership or not enough participants. The latter is likely because many users have no idea a Tourney's going on! I propose something like this under "help us Maintain This Page":



(it would also be accompanied by a date and time)

Proposer: Deadline: July 22, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Sorry, I was a little distracted, anyhow I support this proposal! Advertising tournaments will draw more users around just so they can participate in them.
 * 2) I am Zero! Good idea, I had no idea user tournaments exist. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Per WarioLoaf.
 * 4) Great idea! I didn't even know there were tournaments going on, and this will definitely get users in the know.
 * 5) - All Right! This will make users participate tourneys, and shows dates easily.
 * 6) per all.
 * Yes,we should because a friend had to tell me about it.
 * 1) I am the tournament for one and only one reason. Its to know some users better! It's fun, enjoyable, the cursing when you lose(to bad no other user will hear you). Why not, what is the harm? Hmm, Hmm? I thought so.
 * 2) Per SMB
 * 3) - Per all!
 * 1) - Per all!

Comments
I don't get it...
 * Whats not to get? it advertises upcoming tourneys for users to attend! --
 * Oooh, why don't you vote on any FA? I don't care, just vote!!!
 * Uh, what has voting on FAs to do with this proposal? Please stay on topic.