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 start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
 * 3) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 4) 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. The voter 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.
 * 5) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 9) 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.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 13) If the Sysops 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.
 * 14) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, 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 Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format
This is an example how your proposal should 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]". - ===[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: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.] Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====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 anoother 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.

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected 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 heading.
 * 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. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split from Star Hill. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split the weekly microgames from NinSoft and contests in WarioWare: D.I.Y. into separate pages. (Discuss) Overtime
 * Split 1-Up Super from 1-Up Mushroom. (Discuss). Deadline: July 10 2010, 24:00
 * Merge Giant Spiked Ball into Spiked Ball. (Discuss). Deadline: July 19, 2010, 23:59
 * Merge Mad Big Boo into Mad Boo. (Discuss). Deadline: July 19, 2010, 23:59
 * Split / from Goomba. (Discuss). Deadline: July 24, 2010, 03:09
 * Merge Congazuma's Castle into Congazuma. (Discuss). Deadline: July 27, 2010, 9:30

Wiki welcome template
I noticed some users (including me) having welcome templates with links to the help section, rules, etc... New users are supposed to get those. However, only some of them do. You see, some new users get reminders for not reading the rules. But if they're new, how are they supposed to know where the rules are without a welcome template. I don't know if this is possible, but I propose we make a wiki welcome template, that will be automatically on the new user's talk page. Like the one in zeldawiki, just with more details. This may reduce the reminders and all the misunderstandings.

Proposer: Voting Start: 08:58, 10 July 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) This seems a much better idea than having a bunch of users going round and only welcoming certain users, as this will make sure every new user knows the rules and has useful links for whenever they may become confused.
 * 3) Per all. I didn't get one - :'(
 * 4) Everyone should get these. I mean, I'm in the same boat as MrConcreteDonkey! One downside might be the lack of unique welcome templates created by users, though.
 * 5) I got one only because I'd done something wrong and needed a reminder. Per all.
 * 6) Now everyone can get a welcome message whether they like it or not. Per all.
 * 7) There are absolutly no downsides to this (at least not that I can think of at the moment. I never really saw the point of user made welcomes anyways since they practically say the same thing except for different colored templates and a different image.
 * 8) per all.
 * 9) Per all. I got one, but another friend of mine gave me a second one because he couldn't be sure if I'd gotten one or not. This way, we can be sure.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all. I don't see anything wrong with this.
 * 12) Per all. I did not recieve a welcome from anyone until about a week after I joined.

Comments
That would probably work if new users were actually reading their welcome templates. Practice has shown that most of them just skip and delete them. Doing this will just result in additional work for almost no gain at all. -
 * If a welcome template appears on new users' talkpages automatically, wouldn't that mean user-made welcome templates like User:Fawfulfury65/Welcome would have to be deleted?

@Edofenrir You're right, some users don't read their welcome templates, and they face the consequences. However, some other users do not have a welcome template, so they can't read one.

@FF65 Yes, they'll be deleted, however, like FFY said, this is the only way to make sure every user has his/her welcome template. We can use some examples like your editing tips though.

I didn't have a welcome template and yet, my sister had one. :( Had to resort to the Help page.

Will this be like how Wikia welomes everyone after they make one edit?

Nipe, if you were on zeldawiki. You should've noticed a user named TheStoneWatcher. However, it is not a real user, but some sort of a...I can't find the right word to describe him. However, I think it's this that we need. I am not good at those...

Mmmmmm, we don't even know if its possible or not. We'll have to ask Steve.

@Mr bones: Yeah, I also suggest we add some editing tips to the welcome messages like on my welcome message. I actually got the idea from User:YellowYoshi398/w, which probably has some better tips.

Steve won't allow a bot.

@Tucayo Heu...What is a bot? Also, since it's possible on zeldawiki and wikirby, I'm pretty sure it'll fit here...I think...

Okay, then check this out! Steve made the bot...before the proposal passes...
 * Yes, and the bot seems to already be working. A new user just got a welcome template automatically. But yeah, we should put editing tips into the message, I'm sure it could help a lot of users.

@FF65 You're right, this way, they'll learn basic editing rules. We're gonna discuss about what we're gonna put later.

Ok, is this on yet? Since I just found about 3 new users who didn't have the template.

No, it does work actually.--Mr bones 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats good.

Remove the fake "New Messages" boxes.
Yes, I know this was said before, but it was never inforced. You know how sometimes onuserpages there are fake "new messages" boxes? Well, they annoy me, and ot just me. Like once, we had to babysit our neighbor, and, when i clicked on the link on 's page, a loud, annoying video popped up, resulting in the baby crying from its nap, and having a fit. Another one had a disturbing picture of a camel that was innapropriatte for little kids. Since nobody did anything about, and for the other stuff I said, i think we should take some action.

Proposer: Voting Start: 21:11, 10 July 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - I think the proposal description explains perfectly why this is not just a stupid joke. It tricks users by messing with basic wiki mechanics. These pranks can break people's trust in the page mechanics, and this is where it stops being funny, and just becoes a nuisance. Per the proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per all. Per the old proposal.
 * 5) Althrough I don't get angry when I get tricked and rick rolled, if this makes most users angry, then it's a wise thing to support. Also, per Edo, using the wiki tools for pranks is kinda destrubing.
 * 6) Per all. It's very annoying. If they want to include them, then they should put it somewhere else on the page.
 * 7) Fake messages are easy to identify (never got tricked), but it's annoying. If someone must have a fake message box, at least he/she should alter it so people can easily distinguish it. (I.e. You DO NOT have a new message) or something like that.
 * 8) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 9) - Per LGM with the differences. I mean, some people might be awaiting a message, and they are searching through user's pages, and they find the fake message box. They click it not realizing it is fake as it is worded the same as a message box, and they are rick-rolled. They are annoying, immature, stupid, a waste of a user's time..............
 * 10) I know some users who have them, and it's pretty annoying. (I used to have one, but someone made me delete it.) Per all.
 * 11) This rule should be enforced. I HATE those boxes. I get excited when I see them, but then, I just realize, oh my god, it's just another of those fake boxes. Rawr. You can't fool me. It's just ANNOYING. So I say we KILL, EXPLODE, and EAT those boxes. Every one of them. No survivors.
 * 12) At first I thought this wasn't necessary but after another look I see how annoying it is. Per all
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all. And, um, Tucayo, it might be true that WE could recognize them, but a completely new user NOT.
 * 16) If your like me you'll click on it anyway. Curiosity killed the user... Per all.
 * 17) Per all. Yes, all. Every single one of them. ALL of them! PER ALL!!!
 * 18) - Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - Stupid, annoying, pointless. But that's never been a great reason to remove something.
 * 2) - Your case is one in a million. If you are smart enough you can see they are fake. They are a joke, have some sense of humor.

Comments
I just went under the the tedious procedure of digging through all our proposal archives to find the proposal that addressed this issue earlier. It can be found here. This new proposal might be a good way to double-check if the points made in the past still are valid in the eyes of today's userbase. -

It should be called "Enforce the Rule" proposal, like how there is the "Enforce the No-Sig policy" proposal. Anyway, it's easy to tell between a fake message box and real ones, but fake message boxes are annoying still.

I saw a TON of sysops with them though. Tucayo for one, but there was alot more "contributive" people who had them.


 * @Booderdash: Sorry to say this, but try to get your facts straight before saying that. First of all, Tucayo is not a Sysop anymore. Second, not a single Sysop or Patroller has that up on their User Page, as I just went through the list. And, I mean, the more contributive people that have it, it goes to like "Special:Mypage" to where it is not as bad as other things it could be. BTW: My opinions are made clear in the proposal before that Edo linked.


 * Baby Mario Bloops, he had it when he was STILL a sysop though. ANd I remember some other people who had it.
 * @Booderdash: Yeah, I realized that. Also, I made it clear that you point out had. Many users have removed it after the first proposal, and yet some still keep theirs. This proposal is a enforcement to make sure that all those fake message boxes get removed.
 * Most of the users didn't hear about the proposal, especially the new ones. I was inactive during the time. Also Ks3, how could Blof make you remove it? You didn't have to, at least yet, but she asked you to.
 * Meh, I kinda liked those boxes. Its mostly just a rickroll but much more harmless. Its a sophisticated kind of humor.
 * You have a rather uncommon definition of "sophisticated humor". -
 * Probably, yet then why is rickrolling such a popular fad on most websites?
 * @Booderdash: I remembered she gave me a reminder or warning of some sort.
 * Nooope. I just told you to remove it.

Sophistication is in no way proportional to popularity. Those two things are entirely different values. On the contrary, actually; Sophisticated humor tends to reject the majority of people. Therefore, most popular jokes are those that are more rudimentary. But this isn't subject of this proposal. -
 * I still don't see whats so bad about it. I mean especially if you just changed it to Special:Random or something like that. I would get how getting transferred to another website might irritate you, but if you just stay on this site, I would think its ok. Besides some of you guys are taking it way too seriously. Its just a harmless joke especially if it doesn't lead you away from this site. The deleted page archive in MY opinion is much more unfunny than the fake message box.

Many people have even said my fake template is really funny. And it is unoffensive. One link leads to a funny, UNOFFENSIVE page, and the ptehr one to Game Over. I don't see any harm in that.

Exactly what Tucayo said. There is absolutly no harm in this. Plus, it teaches a valuable lesson:Don't get too excited and click random things. That can get you viruses. Also, if you're running away from a giant boulder and you see a wallet on the floor, are you going to get it? besides if you were already on someones USERPAGE, you would probably be in a very social mood, which I would think tolerate fake message boxes.

Those fake messages do not cause harm, just some people can't take a joke. However, if the link leads to a screamer or a scary picture, or some meture contents, or something that harms your computer. It'll be a good thing to remove those. I only supported becuse it's a wiki tool.

It's a joke all right. It's funny the first time you see it. But once it starts pooping (haha) up everywhere, it starts getting terribly UNFUNNY and UNCOOL. And it NEVER makes me laugh or tricks me. I came to people's userpages to learn about the user, not to get "tricked". And "many people" is not "all people." If the message leads to somewhere funny, so be it. I don't care. I just hate to see that stupid, fake, orange box when I expect a new message.

Well, its ok if it doesn't make you laugh, its just a thing. You don't have to think its funny. You just have to leave it. Like your pooping joke wasn't funny, but I can still take it. The message can just lead to Special:Random for all I care. I just think its a bit childish to have a proposal to remove fake message boxes just because they annoy a few people. And i still can't get how its annoying. Is it like some people think babies are annoying? Anyways, I don't see how anyone could fall for it. Its just interesting to see whats on the other side of the link.


 * A few people? A lot of people get annoyed by it. And I intentionally meant "popping", but I had a typo and decided to leave it like that. And, like Edofenrir said, it's a way to mess with the wiki mechanisms, which makes us lose trust. And who doesn't like new messages? A lot don't like seeing the link go to another place when they expect a new message.
 * As I said, it is REALLY EASY to find out fake boxes.
 * True, but it still annoys me.
 * I know you did, but it was kind of a joke right? Anyways, i doubt anyone will lose their interest over wiki mechanisms from fake message boxes. besides if there is a real message, there would be two boxes on the screen and that is hysterical.
 * Oh yes, two boxes. So hysterical. Maybe later there will be three.
 * I doubt it. What person would be dumb enough to put 2 fake messages on their page?
 * Sarcasm, Booderdash.

If the links are so bad, well, I saw this thing called a fake-link, and if you just put a fake link, would that be as bad? That way, when you click it, nothing happens, which wouldn't lead you to another page or anything, because it does nothing! Am I right? :)

Well, that would piss people off, becuse they'd get all excited and go and click it... but nothing happens! Some people might think they're computers are malfunctioning and take it to the repairs and lose money.
 * Seriously, who would do that? To think their computer is malfunctioning because they cannot click on a link?
 * Proves my point, who would get angry at a fake message box that apparently doesn't even work?

Reduce focus on content only somewhat related to Mario
In looking at the Kirby article, I see quite a bit of content that is related to the Super Smash Bros. series. Now while I do not think that all of it should be removed, I feel that we needn't discuss content that is related only to Kirby or other series. It should only focus on the relevant references made to Mario by Kirby's powers, trophies, etc. My proposal is to remove such content unless it is related to Mario in some way [ie, mentioning that Kirby has various copy powers taken from Mario series characters]. But also - create a kind of affiliation between this site and the Smash Bros. Wikia. This way, instead of putting "amateur coverage" of Smash Bros. content, we can direct the readers to a site that covers the Smash Bros.-related content much more deeply. In turn, they can send readers our way for Mario-related content.

Proposer: Voting start: 12 July, 2010 21:11 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 21:11

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) - We will not have any affiliation with Wikia.
 * 2) - Well, not necessarily wikia Tucayo, but I see no use in doing this.
 * 3) I see there are two proposals. Anyway, both are unecessary.
 * 4) Well, we are not affiliated with Wikia, and the Smash Bros. Wiki is, so we can not affiliate with them in any way. Also, we should keep the Smash Bros. information on the pages because Smash Bros contains characters from Mario's series. If we were to go through with this, we would have to remove all the Wario, Donkey Kong, and Yoshi series information, and affiliate with there respective Wikis.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Just the Smash Bros. wikia? How about Kirby wikia, Zelda wikia, Final Fantasy wikia, Kingdom heart wikia, Pokemon wikia, phineas and ferb wikia, Resident Evil wikia, or Spongebob wikia? -_-
 * 8) - While we need to take care of our unorganized Super Smash Bros. content eventually, I highly doubt this is the right way.
 * 9) I am Zero! Per Tucayo and I took a look at the Kirby article and their wasn't anything like what you talked about there. Zero signing out.
 * 10) - We aren't wikipedia where you actually have to hunt for information about Mario to here. Also, we are not about to just drop all the hard work we did on those not really related articles of Mario just to gain an affiliation with Wikia or Super Smash Bros Wiki.
 * 11) - As a member of the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance, we can not affiliate with a Wikia. A goal of NIWA is to create traffic between the wikis, and SSB is a prime way to do that, though each wiki will still include the basics. But for now, I think our comprehensive coverage of the non-Mario SSB content is perfectly reasonable.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) - Per Walkazo.
 * 15) I thought Smash Wiki on Wikia was planning to move off wikia's servers. But, on this subject, I'm opposing because of this. It says that every information of character x who apppeared in a cross-over featuring Mario will get coverage of everything in that game.

Comments
The use lies in creating more focused content. As opposed to attempting to give subpar coverage of non-Mario content, we give hits to the site that actually provides incredibly detailed content, and vice versa for the Mario series. - NARCE 17:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, no. We won't have any type of affiliation with Wikia.
 * Did you read the proposal? The act would involve CREATING an affiliation. - NARCE 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are an independent Wiki, the Smash Wiki is not. Therefore, we won't have any affiliation with them.

Change categories such as "Category:Beta elements" to "".
From what I hear, the beta elements pages were created because it was too difficult for the reader to find beta elements unless they were split out. This way, articles can be meatier and less forked, and readers can still find the relevant content. This proposal would affect all related categories and articles related to those categories such as Category:Glitches, and would result in the subpages being merged, such as Mario's Tennis/Beta elements.

Proposer: Voting start: 12 July, 2010 21:16 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 21:16

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless. How can an article have beta elements?
 * 2) Well, there is no point in changing the name by two letters, and merging the "subpages" would cause some pages to double in length with information that works well in separate articles. Also, it would take a good amount of time to move the information, the current setup has worked with new and old users, that is why this proposal lacks a point.
 * 3) - Pointless.
 * 4) - Per all. The current set-up works just fine.
 * 5) It'll just make it longer to tye in. Basically useless
 * 6) Per Baby Mario Bloops' comment.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - This would be completely pointless. Per all.
 * 9) I am Zero! Very pointless and per all. Zero signing out.

Comments
Why?
 * This is one of the times I can easily say "Good Point" to you, KS3. We don't need the Articles with part as it is just extra and we don't need the extra.

Well, I concur with you both because the first two words in the proposed name are pointless.
 * Looking at Mario, size doesn't seem to be a problem with MarioWiki articles. To say that there is no point in creating a more concise article is absurd - it would factually improve them, and whatever ones aren't improved by the measure can easily remain split out on a case-by-case basis. The whole reason the split-off sections exist was to more easily categorize them. This, factually, solves the problem of categorization. Is it a problem if a category doesn't sport some amaazingly flashy name? - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have made your assertion invalid.
 * Actually, it didn't, at all. The assertion was that we had to split these articles out because it was difficult to find such beta content/glitches/etc. This is an acceptable, logical fix to that problem. The proposal is to make articles like Yoshi's Island into a little more than a bunch of lists, which it currently is. Beta elements and glitches are two of the things that, if added, could make that article WAY more interesting. But as it stands, people have to navigate away from the page constantly in order to get a full experience. Splitting these articles out in the first place was pointless - changing categories and merging articles doesn't have to be done overnight, and can be done by multiple people. To the person who said that it would take longer to type in, that's simply not true. As it stands, if one searches for Glitches, they go to Category:Glitches. If one searches for Beta elements, they go to Category:Beta elements. Why would it have to change? If someone searches for Glitches, they can still go to the category. It would be no more difficult than if it stayed at the current title. Basically, the proposal seeks to have more concise articles, rather than have all of the sections forked off. And again, to the point that it would make them too big: I've never seen anywhere where someone would suggest forking an article off because of size. Mario is incredibly large, but no one has said anything. SMW2 is surprisingly small, and could be made larger if relevant content were moved back. However, there is no way to move it back, because of a proposal that argues that because the category is worded that way, content related to glitches or beta elements may not be in the main articles. As opposed to having a strong article, we have a weak article with two subarticles. It's silly. If the amount of effort required is a problem, I can do it all myself. It shouldn't matter if it's pointless if it doesn't affect anyone else, and the amount of time doesn't matter because I'm fine doing it over time. It is not as if the new proposal would confuse readers - they would surely adapt immediately. The only contention is the page length problem, and again, such a thing may be handled on a case-by-case basis. If it does indeed make the article too long, agreed, it should be split out. But for some content where it is just a few sentences, especially when the main article is small, then we ought to definitely merge it back in. As it stands, opposing the measure feels like opposition for the sake of opposition. - NARCE 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. That doesn't sound right at all... Seriously, ARTICLES can't have beta elements. Name one that does.
 * Mario's Tennis/Beta elements

Well NARCE, there are no short game articles, and the situation with SMG2 could be fixed with adding more content, doesn't have to be Beta elements. Also, this would affect all game pages and glitches, if you merge the beta elements of one game with the games page, you have to do it with all game pages, some of which are rather long pages, and merging long pages with long pages makes monitoring the article a nightmare for Patrollers and Admins. Plus you say "it shouldn't matter if its pointless" but, it does, if you make a moderate article long through pointless measures, it is not necessary. If something is pointless it is not logical.
 * No, we don't HAVE to do it with ALL of them. That is broken logic that has NO place in an argument. If it negatively affects the quality of an article, then it can be avoided. Do you people not have guidelines? Policies and guidelines are two different things. Policies are to be enforced at all times, while guidelines are to be enforced when the situation calls for it. If a guideline would be detrimental to the quality of an article, it is to be ignored. But your stance is that because of the exception of articles, not the majority of them, that it should not be enforced on any articles. Mario's Tennis can use as much content as it gets, and yet we're forking the information off for no reason. And as for your argument that SMW2 [not G2] is not small, yes, it's not small by stub standards. But why is it shorter than the Wikipedia article? Logically, Wikipedia should have less content for its articles than a website that is focused on the related subject, true? - NARCE 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Stricter featured article standards.
From looking through some of the FACs, as well as some of the articles already featured, I've seen that not one article actually passes the criteria presented in MarioWiki's FA standards. Let's examine them, and let's use the most recent article - Mario Power Tennis - as an example.

  1. …be well-written and detailed. - Not the worst writing, but it could be improved significantly in both flow and how it presents itself. But the problem with this point is that it is not detailed. Gameplay and plot-wise? Yes. But it does not educate the reader of how it came into being, nor does it tell readers how much it sold, or how the critics received it.

  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view. - Not a major problem, but I did notice some instances where the writer[s] give their own POV, such as suggesting that Wario and Waluigi being injured in the commission of their evil scheme was unfortunate [whereas someone may object and say that because they only got injured by their own evil design, they got what they deserved].

  3. …be sourced with all available sources and Mario-related appearances. - And here's the kicker. Some may argue that it is sourced in that it has A source, but that's not acceptable. This criteria clearly expects an article to be fully referenced. As it is, almost every article fails this standard, save for some like the "list of Zess T. recipes", whose source is obviously the game.

  6. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box. - The lead does not mention who created the game [the person, not the company], how well it was received, and mentions the Wii version as an important aspect, when the Wii version should be mentioned at the end, as this article is about the GameCube version.

  8. …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles. - Aside from development and reception info, it is fairly significant, but it fails this criteria in that it doesn't take from any sources.

Without any criticism of what is there - such as the bloopers, which, as a Wikipedian, I'm not a fan of them being there, but I do understand that this is supposed to be a "complete Wiki", and as such, they should be there - I can say that what isn't there absolutely guarantees that is is not ready for featured status. I think people take it too seriously - first and foremost, writing a quality article is priority over being praised for it. There are rules put in place to prevent people from successfully featuring more than three articles. Seriously - take pride in your work, not the award you get for it.

Proposer: Voting start: 12 July, 2010 22:42 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 22:42

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless, and thats way too strict. That would make us have to unfeature alot of our previous featured articles.
 * 2) - Everything you have proposed just now is basically already in the FA rules. The "problem" here is that FA nominations contain a voting process, and as such, they are subjective. The reason why these articles get featured despite their flaws is because there were, are, and always will be people who just aren't so strict with rules, and as such, are more indulgent with the nominated articles. Your proposal will not change the people's hearts, and therefore, it is pointless.
 * 3) - Nothing is ever perfect to everyone. That is why we have the voting system. If you do this, then it is like impossible for an FA to become a FA.
 * 4) What they're standards are fine.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per Booderdash.
 * 7) Well, all of it is already in the the FA rules, and there are many people who are not as strict with the rules as you. Also, the rules are subjective with every article in the Wiki, every article has different problems and strengths, some are minor some major, there is a difference between what really needs to be fixed and what you can fix on your own. If there were only strict people running the process, there would be no featured articles, that is why this proposal is useless.
 * 8) The standards are perfectly fine...
 * 9) Per Edofenrir and Gamefreak75.

Comments
Man, you make too many proposals x.x
 * You can never have too many legitimate proposals. - NARCE 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate"? What's wrong with the FA standards now? Have you really seen FA's that actually do not follow at least one rule? And of those articles, which of them are currently or have been nominated for unfeaturing? We don't need to expand the rules, we understand the rules, and we have a excellent rule system for FA's.
 * The problem with the FA standards is that people use a case-by-case standard that they wish to apply whenever a favourite game or character or element is up for FA. The FA standards are almost never enforced in any meaningful way. And it's "like impossible"? Why is it impossible, when it frequently works on Wikipedia? The nomination process is basically "do you like this character? y/n" for a lot of people who will vote the worst article FA if they like the subject. And to the notion that there is any problem with the defeaturing of the articles... how are articles helped by keeping them featured? Having such a mediocre standard for featuring encourages mediocrity. The voting system is easily fixed by removing it as an outright vote. I see peoples' opinions being removed by opposition because they argue that it has been already addressed or that their point does not matter. The whole process is ruthlessly stacked in favour of featuring an article. - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that NARCE has been making a lot of proposals and hasn't actually formatted them right.

I concur, and NARCE some votes are like that but, not all of the votes are like that. Most of the time I see a FA nomination it is full of meaningful votes.
 * Why shouldn't all votes be like that? This isn't a popular vote, it's based on the quality of the article. If we had 100 people vote and say "I sure do like Birdo, she's neat", by the current rules, it would pass, even if the article didn't fulfill any of the criteria once it was examined. The featuring feature will eventually be reformed. Would you rather it happen after we feature many more articles, or would you rather fix it as soon as possible? - NARCE 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have one support reason and a group of people who agree with it, and there are no votes against it saying that they hate the object in question, so this proposal is pointless.

Set limit of proposals by a certain user
Well, first of all, we have this for FA's, so why don't have it here? I now that will not convince you all, so I will detail it even more. Please, take this in count, this is nothing personal against anyone.

So, many of the proposals made are rather pointless, impossible, unprobable, or simply useless, so why not set a 2 proposal per person limit in order to avoid this? When one proposal passes/fails, then the proposer can propose another one. Simple.

Proposer: Voting start: 14 July, 2010 18:00 GMT Deadline: 21 July, 2010 18:00 GMT

Set proposal limit

 * 1) - Per me

Allow infinite number of proposals by a certain proposer

 * 1) Sorry Tucky, but this really doesn't seem necessary. Users may have a few good ideas at a time that they wish to propose. They could be restricted by the limit. I understand that they could wait, but limiting proposals wouldn't stop people from making fake/pointless ones. Also, if it is fake/pointless, it should be removed, and if a user continually makes bad proposals, they can be warned or banned or something. From what I see here, you are just fed up with a certain user who made a few "bad" proposals above. Also whether or not a proposal is bad depends on the opinion of the person viewing/making it. Sorry, no way.
 * 2) Thats not really fair or nesccary.
 * 3) Please don't compare proposals to Featured Articles. Proposals are an idea. Just because you think it's terrible doesn't mean that others think the same (such as the proposer of those). Besides, what's the point in setting the limit? It's bound to fail anyway. Besides, several people can think up of several well-thought out proposals that they don't want to forget and so they state that idea and see the opinions of the others.
 * 4) Proposals and Featured Articles are two different things, sorry. Per all.
 * 5) Sorry, but I have to admit you're overreacting. Per all.

Comments
Using the FA rule as an example is terrible because the FA rule reinforces the notion that it is important to be acknowledged for your work with a gold star. - NARCE 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...shorten the proposals per user? Do you mean, when his/her proposal passes/fails, he/she can add a new one right? In that case, I'm with this. Some proposals are pointless. But FAs aren't the good thing to compare with this. Cause' there are millions of articles!
 * Exactly :) Also, NARCE, your comment makes no sense.
 * Good then, I'll wait til' tomorrow to vote!--Mr bones 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense? Well, here's a q - what good reason exists to limit the number of FAs a person may have under their belt to three? - NARCE 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is the answer. There are so many articles here. If a user creates 10 articles a day. Wouldn't that be a disaster?

YOu don't understand, is the number of FA's you can nominate. Not "have under your belt", as they are not yours.

Do TPPs count?
 * Nope.

Whose Point of View is it Anyways?
It caught my attention that some level walkthroughs, bosses, etc. articles have it said in the players point of view (Then the player will need to.....), but on the Congazuma article it has it in the character's point of view (.....then Donkey Kong has to hit him in the head). So it comes down to this issue should we have all the articles at the character's or the player's point of view, or should we leave them alone?

Proposer: Voting start: 15 July, 2010, 14:00 Deadline: 22 July, 2010, 14:00

Player's point of view

 * 1) I am Zero! The reason is that their are some games where you can walkthrough with different characters. And do you like my reference on the title! Zero signing out.

Comments
I think the games where there ARE alot of ranged gender character we can use "the player" but when its solely male or female we use the character.

I think a mix of the two is fine: multiplayer games need the option to talk about the player. For example, when you've got something like Mario Kart or Mario Party, you can't list off all the playable characters the text could apply to, and simply saying "the character" all the time would sound really bad. However, when you're talking about more conventional games like Yoshi's Island or Super Mario Galaxy, always saying "the player has to do this, and that, and then they face Bowser" starts sounding a bit too walkthrough-ish, whereas talking about it all using "Mario" as the vehicle sounds more like an in-game perspective, like the character articles (you definitely can't say "the player" when you're talking about what happened to Mario during Super Paper Mario, for example). So, by necessity the wiki will always have some articles saying "Mario/whoever" and others saying "the player", so for the pages where either would work, I think having the option to use both would be the best course of action. For one thing, it'll add variety to the writing: I've always found the presence of both "Mario" and "the player" in the same paragraphs much less repetitive, and therefore easier to read, than passages with only one or the other. And even if some people do find the duality distracting, as I said before, the wiki needs both styles, so really, having common ground utilizing both of them isn't inconsistent, but merely knitting the two halves of the wiki together. A voting option to keep using both should be added. -

Replace Super Mario Wiki's Logo
Since the Logo is viewable from every page of the entire wiki, I think it should be replaced by something better. No offense to whoever created the current picture, but for me, it just doesn't fit. So, I created a possible alternative to it which you can see here: It's a mix between Wikipedia's logo and Mario's head. I'm not saying that the current logo has to be replaced with my version, just that it has to be replaced. But if you all like my new logo, I wouldn't mind seeing it on the wiki.

Proposer: Voting start: 4 July, 2010, 16:10 Deadline: 23:59, 13 July, 2010

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) I think the new logo is genius, and, personally, I don't think people would see the logo and say that we are affiliated w/ Wikipedia. Most people should immediately recognize Mario's trademark moustache.
 * 3) Not bad, but it looks a little more like Starship Mario. But that's not a complaint.
 * 4) This looks good. It may not get chosen, looks like we are a bit outnumbered. However, that logo up there has simply been there a little too long. Every company or website should change their logo at least once in their lifetime. Infact, I wonder if it is even necessary to put the words underneith it, this logo is so well made it describes what the site is without them- a version of wikipedia dedicated to Mario knowledge. Though I oppose the old logo, I give kudos to whoever made it. The background scenes combined with the logo in front is pretty genious.
 * 5) Lu-igi board per all. also, wikipedia's logo isn't copyrighted. the simpsons wiki for example uses it humourously.
 * 6) The old logo is kind of boring. I like the idea of a new logo.
 * 7) I agree with, the old one WAS dull!
 * 8) Yes, I agree. The current logo is dull. In fact, we need a fresh new logo!
 * 9) I agree. The current logo is pretty good, but the effect of it is starting to wear out.
 * 10) I agree. The background of the logo doesn't look like it's from a Mario game at all!
 * 11) I liked the current logo, but it got boring after a while. I don't like the proposed logo, but I think the current one should be changed.

Oppose

 * 1) I think the current logo is fine. And Per the users in the comments who believe that the new image basically copies Wikipedia.
 * 2) We're not affiliated with Wikipedia. This logo will likely make many people new to the wiki think the opposite.
 * 3) I am Zero! I get where you're comming from but even though the logo is original the current one we have is fine and original also. Zero signing out.
 * 4) - Per all. Also, since our logo is used in NIWA affairs, changing it requires a fair bit of effort all over the place, so unless something is so great that it just has to be our new logo, it would be best to stick with the current design.
 * 5) - Per 2257, per Walkazo, and per myself in the comments section.
 * 6) Sadly, per all. "Wiki" itself is enough to make new people assume we are affiliated with the wiki. The logo looks nice, but it looks too similar to the Wikipedia logo.
 * 7) - Per all, including myself in the comments section below.
 * 8) Per everyone and everyone in the comments. I will like it if we didn't use the "Wikipedia PKWiki Simpson-Wiki Starship-Mario-with-cracked-temple potatohead copywrited logo thingy" and if this occured a month later.
 * 9) Per Stoob.
 * 10) Well, we are not affiliated with Wikipedia, and it looks somewhat like what would happen if Mario received a head-cracking head shot. Plus, we are not a ripoff of Wikipedia. Also, the current logo has only been there a few years, and it looks fine. It might need an update in two to three years, and remember, that is some time from now.
 * 11) Maybe a new logo wouldn't be a terrible idea but the Wikipedia one is not a good alternative and I'm pretty sure its a copyvio
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all. That logo itself that I see wouldn't be one that I'd recommend using.
 * 15) Per all. Nice logo, Nelde, but the original is fine.
 * 16) – Image might look good, but there will be copyright issues if it gets used; logo is the property of Wikipedia, which the Mario Wiki isn't affiliated with.
 * 17) (Green Falcon) The current logo is too beautiful to be replaced.
 * 18) per all, I don't like copycats. Its a cool image but per M&SG
 * 19) - Per all.
 * 20) - Great work! But... per all.
 * 21) - Per Mario Fan 123.
 * 22) - I am defenetly not against the logo but there will probably be a copyright lawsiut filed by Wikipedia since we are copying the logo.
 * 23) We do need a new logo but that one is a little bland.
 * 24) - Lets not steal from Wikipedia. Also, I'm pretty sure that we changed the logo a few years ago. Anyways, I think this logo is fine for another year.
 * 25) Per all.
 * 26) This is just a matter of taste. Per all.
 * 27) Why, just why? As far as I know, the Wiki IS NOT related to Wikipedia, plus I'm sure that proposed logo is copyright infringement. Per all.
 * 28) I don't hate the new logo, but the current one is more related to Mario, and more colourful and exciting.
 * 29) No. Just... no.
 * 30) I really like it, but I like the current one better.
 * 31) Per Green Falcon
 * 32) Yeah, this current logo works just fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 * 33) Cool image, but I per all.
 * 34) Congrats on the work you did! But, unfortunately, it looks too much Wikipedish. I said that originality is nice. I won't say it again.
 * 35) Per all.
 * 36) Per all. Wikipedia sucks and we can't dare to look them. Besides, this logo is really good already.
 * 37) Look, somebody took Starship Mario, put it in Photoshop or something, and made it look like piece-of-Pianta-poo wikipedia. Per all. No way.

Comments
This was really a hard one to decide on. I personally am in favor of the idea of replacing the logo but not with the proposed logo.

I like originality, though. I think the current logo is fine too. But, it's a matter of taste, not objective facts.

Personally, I don't like borrowing logos. I mean, the logo you created was borrowed from wikipedia and Mario's face was borrowed from Starship Mario. Besides, that Mario head is creepy, in my opinion. Make the Mario head a mushroom, and I'll be happy!
 * @LeftyGreenMario: Which Mario head do you mean? The one above the mushroom emblem?


 * The whole logo is Mario's head with pieces flying away at the top.

It reminds me of the logo of Earthbound Wiki (anyone at NIWA should know this)

Er... is it just me or does the lower left of the picture have the Pikmin logo from brawl?

I am Zero! @LuigiMania: That is Daisy's emblem. At first I thought this was a joke proposal, but I like the originality also, but that logo will do better if when you enter the SMW it will be similar to Wikipedia, instead of the main page, a page with nothing but that logo and a search bar if you understand. Zero signing out.
 * @Zero: So basically this? BTW, I like the logo but the current logo is just as good - logos are logos; they all depict different things but pretty much all work. May I also suggest that if this proposal does not pass, you make a personal Monobook.css page and then implement your logo?

It's a fine logo - I personally like it - but I agree with LeftyGreenMario. I think we should run this by Porplemontage/Steve - the wiki's creator.

I don't really have a problem with our old logo. 'tis fine. A logo is a statement about a website, and your logo basically states "Look here, we are a rip-off of Wikipedia!". I don't want to be a rip-off of Wikipedia, though. -

You know, if you don't like the logo, you can just change it in your monobook. --

His logo is freaking awesome.

Well, @Edofenrir: I agree, and I still think this logo is inappropriate because there are 5 year olds on the wiki, the proposed logo looks like Mario is receiving a head-cracking head-shot with no blood.

It looks like Starship Mario, Earthbound Wiki's logo, and Wikipedia's logo combined.

I feel that the image should be replaced, but not with that. The current one feels cluttered and unfocused, yet the proposed one looks awkward and unMario-like. I would think that it would be nice to see a cycling main image, such as cycling between various identifiable protagonists and antagonists - ie, Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Luigi, DK, Yoshi, Wario, Waluigi, Toad, and Daisy. - NARCE 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@Baby Mario Bloops, the logo was changed sometime during 2008-2009. It can be found on Userbox, as the "Nostalgic user" userbox created by Tucayo.

You guys, this is not a proposal about replacing our current logo with that potatoman (no offense to whoever made it on the potatoman part), this is a proposal about replacing the logo in general. For example, I whipped up this monstrosity.

Hi everyone. I am WarioSuperstar (brother of patroller Arend) and I created our logo, but I don't think it is a perfect logo. I have only one reason for my opinion, because our logo is not a really logo. It is just a picture with Super Mario Wiki on it. All the other NIWA wikis have real logos. A logo has to be simple, functional and timeless. Our logo isn't perfect so I made a new logo for our wiki. What do you think about this? I think it is simple, functional and it's a real logo.


 * Dude, that logo ROCKS.
 * ExampleStupidNewLogo.png thank you! Here is a picture of how it would look if it would be used. But if I look at the results of this proposal, there will not come a new logo. Signed by WarioSuperstar, brother of 

For some reason, I just don't think it looks good in the corner there. I don't know why. I might just need to get used to it...
 * Well, my logo does have a really red colour. That may be the reason why you think it doesn't look good. Also I used Internet Explorer in this screenshot, but in Firefox or Google Chrome it would probably look better because of the rounded boxes. I also recommend looking at the full size of the picture if you only watched the small preview. It will look a bit different. EDIT: I toned down the (dark) red colour of the logo. Signed by WarioSuperstar, brother of 


 * That logo looks a lot better than the one we have currently!
 * Okay, I admit that is better than this current one in many ways, but I think that our logo still has life to this wiki to last another six months or so. I just don't think is the time to change our logo yet.

I'm not against changing the logo, I think we do need something that we can easily be recognised by, not just a picture with 'Super Mario Wiki' on it, although I'm against that Mario head that looks like the Wikipedia logo. I don't like the colour and its just generally ugly (no offence to the guy who made it). I like the red mario cap logo above a LOT more, it just needs modifying on some way so it won't look so out of place in the corner.

Hey people! WarioSuperstar here again. Baby Mario Bloobs said "I just don't think is the time to change our logo yet." I agree with his statement. It can still go a few months. But if we want a new logo for our Mario Wiki, it should be changed on a good date. For example on August 13 (the Mario Wiki anniversary) or January 1 (New Year), but not on a random day. Fafulfury and Windspyro both said the new logo looked out of place in the corner. I keep modifying the logo so it won't look out of place. But after 2 to 3 hours working on it, I simply came to the conclusion that you need to get used to the logo because Mario Wiki always had a square logo in the corner, but the new logo is totally different. Signed by WarioSuperstar, brother of 
 * I do reason with that logic and all, and the new one right above this message is really amazing and all. Yet, I really don't know what Porple has in mind, and really it is up to him about this topic. And, It's Bloops not bloobs (lol).
 * You are right Bloops. I guess only the highest ranked users of Mario Wiki can decided which logo will be used on the Mario Wiki and on top of that, most users don't see the point of changing the logo (see the proposal results). But as you probably already noticed, designing logos is really a passion of mine and I got a bit carried away. And sorry for misspelling your name (and Fawfulfury's name). Signed by WarioSuperstar, brother of 

Whoa this logo down here looks TONS better! ForeverDaisy09 19:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's my logo?

Didn't we already change the logo...at least once? I mean, we had a one before this one and it's a scenery of a sprite of Mario and the words: Super Mario Wiki. I don't want to change again.

I thought this proposal is finished. The deadline was 23:59 July 13, 2010. It's 1:31 July 15 2010.

Broader Process
I feel that if we want a new logo, we need to invoke a much broader process to change it because the randomly proposing logos here will not work. If it is decided we need a new logo, then it must be done on a separate page with a process specific to creating a new logo. Any method involving a logo change on this page will be a mess that won't get anything done.
 * How about the sandbox?
 * I mean something like a page in which there are a handful of potential logos that people can vote on. A process like that would get much better results.

I agree
 * I also agree. And if people had actually read my proposal they would've seen that it wasn't about replacing the logo with my version but replacing it in general. Though I have to admit that the wording may have been a bit unfortunate. --Nelde 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Niwa
Also, if you go here you would see a bunch of pictures. The second one links to the Super Mario Wiki, and it sucks on there. I personally think that the caps work much better then the current SMG logo thingy.
 * This is probably a reason why my brother made the cap logo. I think he told that earlier.

TPPs on Main Page
A week or two ago their were no proposals up so nothing appeared on the proposal box on the main page, so I propose when that happens then we should put the TPPs into the proposal box on the main page when no proposals are made. See when their are no proposals then the box is blank with nothing in it except "No proposals at the time", to a visitors point of view a blank box only saying that looks obscure and unprofessional, it make it look like if we don't do that much to better improve the SMW.

Proposer: Voting start: 6 July, 2010 15:30 Deadline: 13 July, 2010 15:30

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! Per proposal. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per the proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal and Coincollector's comment.
 * 4) - I like the idea, and it will show us the TPP's that are currently out. That will be a lot easier than having to go to here just to click the link to the talk page.
 * 5) - Per proposal.
 * 6) Per Zero.

Oppose

 * 1) I disagree because when it says there are no propals, it made me think that when a visitor would see that, they would know that the wiki is in a "time of peace," somewhat, where there really isn't anything major to be fixed/removed/added. It would show to me that this is a stable wiki where things are running smoothly.
 * 2) - Per Bowser's luma, and per myself in the comments section.
 * 3) } Per Bowser's luma, and per myself in the comments.

Comments
I'd vote and support but I'm not to sure about the time as I'm Austraian. I'll wait till tomorrow.

I'm not entirely sure if switching back and forth between two different topics depending on if there is a current proposal or not will make us look any more professional. It might seem random and confusing to guests to see a proposal on one day, and a list of things on the other. Maybe that's just me, tough, I probably need to see it in practice. -
 * Maybe we should have a section underneath the proposal about the TPPs.
 * No, that would add needless clutter to have Proposals and TPPs on the Main Page. Maybe we should just choose one TPP (the one ending soonest) and make a blurb about it on the main page as if it were a regular proposal: then the template would be consistent and almost always in use: everyone gets what they want. -
 * I am Zero! @Walkazo, no I'm not saying to add the TPPs into the proposal box while a proposal is there, I'm saying when their are no proposals then we put the TPP list in. Zero signing out.
 * I knew that: my opening comment was addressing KS3 ' s suggestion to have both. -

Erm... what ARE TPPs?
 * Milk shake those abbreviations. It's Talk Page Proposals.

Do you ever remember that I had the same idea before? For some reason Steve removed it despite the question.
 * And if you click "Older revision" it still has it? Coincollector, it's been on there for a long time.
 * @KS3: Well, duh, everything that has been changed on any article is in "Older revision" no matter if it is removed later. It is an edit, not an entire page removable and then recreated. If Porple deleted it, then he had a reason for it.
 * @Bowser's Luma: Yes, but your talking about a double meaning view. It could mean peace, but it could show us that we aren't doing anything to our wiki, and that can be seen as very bad. We really don't want people to think that we aren't doing all we can to improve the Wiki, as the wiki is always at work, never really peace.
 * It's a matter of opinion. That is pretty much what proposals are about.

People should know that when there are no TPP's, that there are no TPP's.
 * I am Zero! I don't get what you're saying. Zero signing out.