MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png 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. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

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) 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 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) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 12) 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.
 * 13) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 16) 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)

Habitat of the Character
If several characters have their locations should then be saying that the habitat type of place it appeared. For example: Lady Bow that appeared in Boo's Mansion then the habitat it would be haunted Mansions

Proposer: Deadline: May 29, 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) (creator)
 * 2) Per Manuel.
 * 3) Per Manuel.

Oppose

 * 1) - These "habitats" aren't really official. Plus, there are quite a few characters whose "habitat" could be questionable -- Wario, Waluigi, Flurrie, Wart, and many others.
 * 2) - Per Stoob. Let me see, are you talking about adding "habitat" category for the characters where they normally live in? I see sorta bland and less useful, better use the places category for the places in the marioverse...
 * 3) - Per Stoob. Also some charcters "live" in more than one places through the series. (e.g. Yoshi, who has been seen to "live" in different areas)
 * 4) - Per Stooben.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - don´t forget about Koopa Troopa it, lives in Grassland, Desert, Space, Beach, etc...
 * 7) - Per all.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Split Proposals Page and Rules
I was looking at one of the comments on one of my proposals, and I got to thinking. Why do we have rules in the How To section? I think we should make a new article (well, I will make an article) that contains some of the rules for the proposals page. It would take a lot out of the How To section and would be easier to add rules without it making the main proposals page too long.

Proposer: Deadline: Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per reasons above
 * 2) Also, the rules r different and it may be on a Navigation page.

Oppose

 * 1) - No one will read the rules if they're on a separate page. There are too many policy pages scattered about the Wiki as it is, and the last thing we want to do is make more of them.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo. If we really want people to follow the rules, we want them to stick out on the Proposals page.
 * Per Walkazo and Stooben.
 * 1) - Per all, its easier to have em in just one page
 * 2) - Per Walkazo, and also, keeping them here would save space.

Comments
If we should not split the pages, then could we at least separate it from the How To section and make it into its own section? If we could do that, then I will delete this proposal.

Eliminate Mainstream Signatures
I was listening to what one of the fellow wiki members have said, and I actually think my proposal about allowing certain signatures was dumb. I myself own an eleven year old computer as well. So, I am going to say what this proposal is about now. If this proposal passes, signatures will be banned from MarioWiki and Help talk pages as well as other pages that say that they are, but will be allowed on article talk pages, user pages, and user talk pages. I think that it slows down older computers and it looks more professional with the   format on the mainstream wiki.

Proposer:, with ideas from Deadline: Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per reasons above.
 * 2) I have a good computer, but I think so, cause old computers take time to load.
 * 3) Signatures look silly on public pages, and they can cause coding problem (Infact, I remember when a signature made it completely impossible to access a page.)

Oppose

 * 1) &mdash;I understand banning them from organized voting pages, but this is too extreme. Why don't we just ban signatures that cause technical issues? Not all of them are disruptive.
 * 2) - Oppose, oppose, OPPOSE. Blitz:You can just revert that edit. TimeQ: Theyre banned from voting pages, and that only really leaves us talks pages. Stooby: Not all sigs cause problems, so i dont see why the sigs of users who are fine must be deleted from other pages. SMB: If you have an old computer, just mark on your browser something to not show the images
 * 3) - Per KPH and Tucayo, plus the following: 1) Having all signtures look the same makes it hard to keep track of who's talking. 2) If the things listed in the perposal happen, we would look boring and dull to anyperson looking at talk pages to see what we think. 3) We can just give a reminder and/or a note to anyone whose sig is causing problems. Besides those reasons, there are other reasons why I think this proposal shouldn't pass; the perposal is a little too extreme, no offense.
 * 4) - KPH convinced me. Having no sigs on this page is understandable; but let's not go for overkill.

Comments
I don't really care either way, but let's assume this passes. In that case, that template should really be moved to to avoid accidental userpage transclusions. e.g. "", instead of ""
 * KPH: That's a good idea. However, certain sigs cause certain problems on different computers. One of my older sigs that had a blue background messed up talk pages for some users, (Pokemon DP, Walkazo, Stumpers, and a few others), while it cause no problems for others. It'd be kind of difficult to narrow down what does and what doesn't cause technical problems, unfortunately. -
 * Tucayo: You misunderstood me. I know that not all sigs cause problems, but some do for certain computers. (Example: Super-Yoshi's signature causes the background of a talk page to turn lightgray on my computer, while on others, I'm sure it's fine. So it's hard to target which sigs are "problem-causers", for lack of a better term. -
 * By "not all of them are disruptive", I was mainly referring to signatures that are no more problematic than, like "KPH2293 (T/C)". Most technical issues are caused by colors/images, and a signature like this uses neither of those. &mdash;
 * Then we can just edit sigs taht affect
 * Why edit those sigs? I don't even think it is possible, users are not allowed to edit other people's user space. If they were, i

Limiting sigs to User space does seem a tad extreme. Maybe they should just be banned from MarioWiki and Help talk pages, but allowed on article talk pages. -
 * Check the proposal. Is it ok?
 * Honestly, I wouldn't mind this proposal as much if it didn't ban anything besides . Look at the example I posted in my previous comment - how is that anymore disruptive than the template? Furthermore, why ban them from only MarioWiki/help pages? How would they would be any more problematic there than they would be on a mainspace talk page? &mdash;
 * Well, are you suggesting that we delete them from the mainspace? Also, Tucayo, why edit those sigs? I don't even think it is possible, users are not allowed to edit other people's user space. If they were, I don't think that would be right.
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. What I mean is, I believe it should be all or nothing. There is little difference between mainspace and MarioWiki talk. Why ban them from one and not the other? Leaving user talk alone makes sense, since what's disruptive on those pages is really up to whoever owns the userspace. Also, you are correct; users do not have the technical power to edit others' pages. Only sysops have that function. &mdash;
 * Mainspace talk pages rarely gather enough comments to be problematic (and the ones that do are generally for the big pages like Bowser, which old computers can't handle anyway), whereas things like MarioWiki talk:FAQ can become monstrous. Users with old computers can always avoid the big pages (I do), but viewing something like the Community Portal is essential if you wanna stay in the loop. Another reason to not ban custom sigs on mainspace talk pages is the fact that it'll be an obscene amount of work to go around to every single talk page and switch the sigs for s, which we'd have to do to be consistent and to insure users won't get confused about how they're supposed to sign new comments from now on. There are far less Help/MarioWiki talk pages that would need this treatment, so while it is still not a savory task, it is doable. Also, timestamps are really handy on mainspace talks pages (old queries may have been answered over time on the page, but just not on the talk) and most people won't think to add after, whereas automatically signing with ~ is much more straightforward. Losing timestamps from Help/MarioWiki talk pages is disadvantageous too, and when you take into account the fact that most of the Help/MarioWiki talk pages are short (like the mainspace talks) and don't pose problems, this proposal starts to look like overkill again. Perhaps more specific proposals could be made in the future (assuming this one fails) to target specific problem pages, like the aforementioned FAQ and Main Talk pages. However, in the end, something needs to be done. I don't mind waiting five minutes to see the Main talk page (when it hasn't been archived in a while), but it just doesn't seem fair that those of us with old technology get penalized by something as frivolous as signatures. -
 * The length that a talk page reaches depends on the significance of the subject, not the namespace. Not every MarioWiki page will become horrendously large, and not every mainspace page will stay at a couple of sections. Besides, not all signatures cause technical problems; we could always just fix/ban the ones that do. &mdash;

Add pronunciations
I think that it would help the wiki if we added pronunciations. This would allow users to know how to say hard names to say. The pronunciation would not have to be in the title it could be the first time the name is said in the article. If a article started like this, Mario is, we would change it to, Mario (Mar-e-o) is, or we could change it to Mario pronouced Mar-e-o is. I still don't know how to pronouce Cackaletta. This would also help make the wiki look more offical, after all the Mariowiki baseicley is a dictionary for all things Mario.

Proposer: Deadline: May 28, 17:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) This looks good, being like Mario (Mar-e-o Japanese: マリオ; originally Jumpman) is the main character of the Super Mario series, BTW its pronunciation
 * 2) Per Tucayo

Oppose

 * 1) - See comment below.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo. Also, to do such a thing, we'd need an unambiguous way of representing sounds. "Mar-e-o" is not acceptable because English vowels can be pronounced in a number of ways.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo and Twentytwofiftyseven. Also, even if we could add the pronunciation, it should be in all available languages, because of things like this... Cackletta is not her only name (Bruja Jiji in Spanish is said...) get it?
 * 4) - There are somethins that one pronunces in a way and others in diferent ways too dificult...
 * 5) - There isn't much of voice acting in the games, therefore most pronunciations would be unofficial.
 * 6) - Per all.

Comments
Thanks Tucayo

It sounds good in theory, but I don't think it'd actually work. For one thing, we can't be sure of some pronunciations; see Talk:Dimentio for one example: we're pretty sure it's "Dime-en-tee-o", but there is some doubt. Another example is the X-Nauts: it's supposedly pronounced "cross-not", but then you have statements like "an X-Yux" implying it's been read as "ex-yux", not "cross-yux" on at least one in-game occasion. Other names aren't offered pronunciations at all, like Cackletta - I'd guess it's "Cak-let-ah", but that's an assumption, not a fact; and seeing a speculation's not allowed on mainspace, I couldn't write that down in good faith. The pronunciation of X-Nauts and their affiliates is significant and is already noted on their articles, but otherwise, adding pronunciations to some articles but leaving unverifiable ones would just look inconsistent. -

We could put possible pronunciation on unsure ones, and for the actually pronunciation for those we could just put the most common one or the most likley one, or we could always put more then one pronunciation

2257: Yeah, the IPA is a good way of putting pronunciations (and "informal" spellings such as "Mar-e-o" could be put additionally). I could also help with that. But I don't think we need a proposal for it. Where the pronunciation appears to be interesting, we can put it. (Only problem about IPA is, that some of the symbols don't seem to be displayed correctly - see this article and its talk).

Allow grammar edits of other users on talk pages
I recently learned of a rule that says that users are not allowed to edit other users' comments on talk pages. That includes their own talk page. I prefer to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation and think that it is a great idea to allow users to edit other users' comments for grammar, spelling, and punctuation purposes.

Proposer: Deadline: Friday, 29 May 2009, 20:00

Allow

 * 1) - I want my talk page to look professional; per above!

Don't Allow

 * 1) - Doing this is sort of "censoring" other user's comments. Other user's comments should not be edited by another user.
 * 2) &mdash;If you want to use proper grammar, then do so. But that does not give you the right to change others' comments just because you think their grammar is unprofessional.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * Per all. Editing other people's comments means editing their writing style. What if they have a very own way of spelling certain words or putting punctuation marks? We really shouldn't manipulate it.
 * 1) - Per TimeQ, that was exactly what i was going to say
 * 2) 4DJONG -First I don't want people editing other people's user pages it's not fair, plus I really think it's rude!!!!
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - This is totally against Wikipedia's policies and therefore it's innapropriate for a Wiki.
 * 5)  - This rule could get out of hand,and users would be changing what other users say.Everyone has there own way of opions and writing,and we don't need anyone changing it.
 * 6) - Per all.

Comments
The content isn't changed; it will look more professional.
 * I would just like to note that this rule is no longer unwritten. It was recently added after an administrative discussion. &mdash;

I really would like to support this, but there's a big, big problem...

This is THE INTERNET. The bane of all grammar and spelling >_>.

No Offensive Material
As a wiki user, I have rarely seen it, and I do not know if there is an already exising rule for this, but I think we should make a new rule for Offensive Material. If a proposal has material deemed offensive by at least three active users, the part that includes the offensive material must be deleted. If it is added again by the proposer, the proposal itself will be deleted. If you have any suggestions for this proposal, please put them in the comments section.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, Monday, 25 May 2009

Create New Rule

 * 1) Per my reasons above.

Leave As Is

 * 1) - I don't think we really need a rule for this as it's more of a matter of common sense. In general, Sysops will delete obviously offensive material.
 * 2) Per Ghost Jam- leave it to the Sysops.
 * Per Ghost Jam. Why make a rule for everything? The list of rules on the proposal page is way too long already, anyway.
 * 1) Per that ghosty thing up there. Some people could also take offense to certain things, while other don't. (Take the Mario Hentai debate a few months back for example. Many hardcore MarioWikians wanted to add information on it as long as it was official; others didn't want it because it would 'taint' the community.)
 * 2) Per Stooben Rooben. Hehehe. Hentai. Perfect example.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - Per GJ & Stooby
 * 5) - Per everybody, that sounded weird, Per all.
 * 6) - Yes the patroller r for that, but why not we have a Warn button on some places like forums it works...