MarioWiki:Proposals

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

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

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

Proposer: Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for writing guidelines and Talk page proposals)

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

====Oppose====

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

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

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


 * For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see here.

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

List of talk page proposals

 * Delete (Discuss) Deadline: May 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a BJAODN subpage for levels (Discuss) Deadline: May 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

Give users the option to not leave redirects when moving pages
Currently, it seems that only admins have this option. Though sometimes the admins themselves ask people to not leave redirects, but it is not possible as they don't have that option. For example; (taken from Baby Luigi and Tucayo's talk pages)

Hello. Please try not to leave file redirects the next time you move an image; they serve no use. -- 12:02, 11 May 2013 (EDT) I'm sure I am unable to move files without leaving a redirect. I don't think regular users have the option to do that, since I don't see the option anywhere, and I would have preferred it. 13:53, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

The reason I am proposing this is simple; like Tucayo said, sometimes redirects serve no purpose, like when moving files. This would also save the admins some time, as they don't have to keep checking the to be deleted category for stuff that could be avoided if this was in place before.

Proposer: Deadline: May 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Give users the option

 * 1) Per proposal.

Don't give users the option

 * 1) As much as I like to have this feature, it is simply unfeasible. Moving the page without leaving a redirect is just like moving the page, but automatically deleting the redirect. Since users do not have the privilege to delete pages, this option cannot be done unless users have the right to delete pages.
 * 2) - I don't think it's possible and even if it was, I think it's best to not muck around with deletion rights. It's really not a big deal to have to delete the automatically-created redirects; in fact, you could even think of it as just another way the admins can patrol and approve these changes.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Good idea, but not everyone can have the rights to delete a page or a file.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) Per Baby Luigi and Walkazo.

Comments
That was a mistake on my part, I wasn't aware users didn't see the "Don't leave a redirect" option. --

Warning for editing large pages for mobile users (re-proposed feature)
SPLIT FROM, RE-PROPOSED FROM 's ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

I made a comment here on the original proposal made by that instead of a template for large  pages that serves as a warning for mobile users, we could have something like this:

That would put the warning only in the page's source, so that user's don't have to see templates littered around everywhere.

Proposer: Deadline: May 23, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - It's best to not clutter up the page sources with unnecessary and easily missed or ignored advisories. As was argued in the last proposal, reverting the odd accident here and there is not a problem, and not worth all this fuss.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo.
 * 3) This template is pretty much like closing the canary cage after the canary escapes. The warning says, "Please take note of this before editing.", but since it appears only in the code, then the user has to click edit button to view this warning in the first place. Not to mention, such warnings like that are very easy to overlook, as what Walkazo had said. If we must warn mobile users, we should create a separate page showing a list of articles that mobile phones may have a problem on so that way, users know what articles to have caution on and we won't have a useless warning in the article, but even then, there's a reason I bolded "must".
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Warnings written as hidden comments in articles can be easily overlooked. Not even a category would work easily.
 * 10) Per NewSMBU.

Comments
@LeftyGreenMario I don't think users would see a category like that either.
 * Maybe not, but I can't find any other ideas to implement this without making the page look distracting or the warning overlooked.

Add a Level-up system to the wiki
A level-up system to the wiki would be a fun way to encouarage people to edit articles and make the wiki better, for example, a new article could give someone 100xp, an edit would give someone 25, and a minor edit would give someone 10. Userspace edits maybe wouldnt count, and undone edits or deleted pages could take away XP, so admins wouldnt have to manually take away the troll's XP, although this would take a long time to make, you could establish a team to make this if the proposal passes. One could start out as a Goomba, and maybe work up by editing to be a Mario. Also, depending on people's rank, it would make it easier to decide the patrollers,etc.

Proposer: Deadline: May, 25, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal, the wiki would be more accurate with more edits and more people would sign up
 * 2) I love that idea! I think less people would vandalize if we do that.

Oppose

 * 1) In theory it sounds great, but in practise I feel it'd get too complicated quickly and people might abuse this by purposefully doing a spelling mistake then changing it back, or accidnetly forget something and then get more XP for doing something they intended to do in the first place. Also I'm not sure whether it'd be possible to do something like this as it'd require quite a bit of coding.
 * 2) Per Yoshi876. Wikia implements this system and people abuse it easily by making ridiculous contributions just to get more privileges.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Users gaining privileges depend more on the quality of the edits, not the quantity. Simple. Quality always beats out quantity.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all, especially Baby Luigi.
 * 8) No. Just no. This could be abused and if you were to make sure so that if you get a certain amount of points you get new user rights or, should I say, level-up, everyone would abuse it to "monopolize" the site or whatever.
 * 9) - Needlessly complicated, easily abused and completely unnecessary. Edit counting is already the wrong mindset to have about contributing to the wiki, and a point and rank system would be even worse.
 * 10) Per Walkazo.
 * 11) Per Mario4Ever.
 * 12) Useless. People should edit for fun and to contribute, not for something as such.
 * 13) Per Yoshi786.

Removals
None at the moment.

Allow Cursing
One of the first proposals ever made here was to ban cursing, yes while there are children on this site, there are most likely are to not know the swear words or use them themselves anyway. Back when I first joined in 2011, I didn't like swearing very much and actually I was against swearing as a whole, however today I have no problem with it and it actually prevents us saying are true feelings. Yes I do think overswearing should be banned and swearing at the mods. I do think users can disallow swearing on their talk page if they don't to see the words.

Also there's a moderate about of swearing down at the forum and userpeadia and yet children go to these places as well. people don't care much about this anyway and they don't really offend anyone unless used to offend, I don't mind them when your not using them to offend others. I think we should officially remove this rule as a whole

Proposer: Deadline: May 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * No, kids under the age of 7 surf this website and might use swears in life, and thus swearing should not be allowed
 * 1) I am against swearing. So vulgar. You can't just make swearing legal.
 * 2) The problem with this proposal is that nowhere is stated explicitly swearing is banned, so what this proposal is asking for (allowing swearing) is moot. The main reason we discourage swearing is the same reason society discourages swearing in public, formal locations; it's crude and unprofessional in these settings. Userpedia is way more informal than MarioWiki, so it's a fairly bad analogy. That being said, there is almost never an appropriate time where you have to swear anyway, since venting is a terrible way to deal with your anger, and if you're really angry about something, it's always best to sound calm and controlled. Overall, though, this proposal is not needed.
 * 3) Per all, especially LeftyGreenMario. No Mario games have swearing in and this a Mario wiki. Do other wikis swear? No.
 * 4) - What the person above the person above me said. This is a pointless and unnecessary proposal.
 * 5) Per all; you're forgetting that this Wiki represents the Mario series itself, which is supposed to be family friendly content wise for the most part. So, no.
 * 6) Per LGM, this is unnecessary.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per LGM and Turboo in the comments. There's no rule to overturn here: the  "ban swears" proposal is six years old and no longer enforced to the letter; the Courtesy Policy merely says that users should use profanity in moderation and respect others' wishes if they don't want cursing on their talk page. The only thing you absolutely can't do is swear at people.
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) - Very unnecessary; per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all, mostly LeftyGreenMario and Rpg gamer. No Mario games swear and it makes no sense to swear like that.

Comments
@A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros, will seeing these words really turn them away from this site?
 * RE: I changed that, but still, I've seen kids swear.

I don't see the point of this proposal; swearing is allowed in mainspace for direct quotes, and there's nothing that prevents people from swearing on their or others' userspace (assuming the user is OK with it, in the latter case). -

Creating this type of proposal might cause… well… stuff. You should check what happened here.

@Turboo Wasn't this the only article where there's swearing? I don't see why there would be any other direct quotes related to the Mario series that would need to have profanity.


 * Yes, but my point is that it's allowed in general (so if we had to quote something else like that, it would be fine). - }

What Turb says is correct, this proposal is pointless. --

What's WRONG with swearing? They're just words, nothing "evil" about them. When you think about it, words themselves are just grunts made by the animal known as homo sapiens. Also, the Bob Hoskins article shoots f-bombs everywhere.
 * The words themselves have no meaning. It's the context the establishes them, and swearing in MarioWiki is totally out of context and should not be used. Exceptions apply, and that exception happens to be a direct quote. That's fine, since we are presenting that quote objectively as possible. In general, swearing does not fit in this wiki. The proposal, however, is asking for allowing swearing, and the main problem is that swearing was never really banned in the first place, just discouraged. MarioWiki should be as formal and family-friendly (the wiki covers as family-friendly subject), though, which is why we strongly discourage it.
 * Take into consideration that most TV programs usually censor swearing and that professionals usually NEVER use it and you understand why swearing is HIGHLY discouraged. It doesn't make you smart, it's unprofessional, and it's highly discouraged in formal areas like these.

Maybe if curses are used, they could be autoconverted to something like &?@,!/
 * Censoring is WAY too easy to bypass

Do not allow un-autoconfirmed users to create their own user talk pages
Lately, I've seen some users create their own user talk pages just to put things on them that would normally go on their user page. This is both violating the Userspace Policy and is a big loophole in the "create your userpage" privilege when becoming autoconfirmed. What I propose is simple; the account onwers themselves only cannot create their own user talk pages, but others can. For example; made an account, and I gave him/her the welcome template. He/she is now free to edit their user talk page. But, if no one gives him/her a Welcome template, he/she cannot start it him/herself until he/she is autoconfirmed. It's as simple as that.

Proposer: Deadline: May 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) – Per the comments made by Turboo and myself.
 * 2) . Per YoshiKong.
 * 3) - Per my and YoshiKong's comments.
 * 4) Per comments below me
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) What person number (6 − 3) × 4 ÷ 6 − 1, a.k.a. YoshiKong said.
 * 7) Per YoshiKong and Turboo.
 * 8) - Per YoshiKong and Turboo.
 * 9) Per all; this feature creates only problems. New users need some ease to begin to be familiar with MarioWiki, and giving them more restrictions like that doesn't help.
 * 10) Per all: people should be able to make their pages when they want to.

Comments
But, what if they wanted to post a question they had on their own talk page? I often see that happening, and I don't think that should be prevented. And are we sure that restricting the creation of their own user talk only until becoming autoconfirmed is feasible? -- 03:04, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
 * They can ask an admin about said question, it doesn't specifically need to be on their talk page. And if restricting the creation of user pages is feasible, so is this.

If a user is that set on using their talk page as their temporary userpage, they could still do that after getting a Welcome template (I think distribution of these is mostly "oh, I feel like giving X a template" now that the bot is gone). If it's really that random and we have no idea who'll be trying to set up their user talk as a camp of sorts, what do you hope to achieve by implementing something like this? YoshiKong also has a valid point, since some users want to be heavily involved in their userspace from the beginning and others just want to ask a simple question or two on their talk page. -

Write "Glitches" Section for levels
I think that if a person knows of a level glitch, but forgot how to do it, they should not have to go down an incredibly long list to find it. This would make the process a lot less tedious as well.

Proposer: Deadline: 5/28/13 at 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per reasons above.

Oppose

 * 1) Why is this restricted only for levels? Doing so breaks consistency for the rest of the articles. Besides, if they're searching for a glitch, they should use Crtl + F and keywords. All glitches should stay on their respective pages.
 * 2) That would be pointless; there are already glitch pages for almost every game, and as Baby Luigi said, you can just user the "Find" tool to look for certain glitches.
 * 3) Per all. And what if a particular glitch appears in many levels, not just one?