MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/5



Backup Ops
ALLOW BACK-UP 9-6

I do not believe many of you are aware, but there has been a practice of "backup-oping" in the chatroom. When it is crowded and people are spamming, or if the only op in the room has to go for awhile, they op their friends or anyone who claims that they will use their power responsibly. I consider this abuse of power & incapability on part of the current ops. If there really is trouble in the chatroom that often, we need more patrollers (at the time of this posting there was 10 users but 0 ops), and the current ops need to take action and not cower in fear! But one of these days chaos will wreak havoc at the hands of one of these "backups". I'm not saying anyone is not trustworthy, this just isn't smart and things need to return to normal.

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} Deadline: 15:00, Dec 2

Only Current Ops

 * 1) – one of these days a proclaimed backup will disrupt the chat, I guarantee it. We need more capable ops, that's the problem!
 * 2) Glowsquid Even thought I am one of those back-up operators, I agree with what Wayoshi said. I am too not against the idea of having more pattrolers, I mean, currenlty, we have at least 10 sysops and one pattroller... what the heck?
 * 3) ChaosNinji I agree wholeheartedly that we need more patrollers and less Back-up ops. At the time of my writing this, the chatroom is being flooded and spammed, as it has been all day, and not a one op has appeared throught the day to stop it!
 * 4) Dannyboy: Agreeing with the person with the title of Wayoshi.
 * 5) Per Wayo
 * 6) With the current inconsistencies with the rules, it's hard enough for the official ops team. I can't imagine it being any better for someone else.

Allow Backups

 * 1) Even as I write this, Wayoshi is spamming the Chat. Do you see why he wants to get rid of Back-up Ops?
 * 21:37, 25 November 2007 (EST) I would remain neutral on this, but I don't think people will be promoted solely to watch over a chatroom, so there would be even less of a solution than there is now.
 * 1) Per all
 * 2) I thought Wayoshi was being reasonable, until I read Pokemon DP's vote.
 * 3) Changed from support, Per Dodoman.
 * 4) Per DP
 * 5) Per DP
 * 6) – There has to be a few backup OPs when NO op is on. Which Steve can do. I vote no backup Ops if this won't happen.

Comments
If this proposal fails, I would like a list of official backups current ops can look towards, maybe in Help:Chat, at the very least. 12:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

There needs to be more active ops.
 * One thing you guys are forgetting, is that most of the current Sysops are trapped in their personal lives at the moment and, I don't know if school is on in America, but, if it is, that is a distraction as well. And, the reason I'm not on all the time, is because I have a life to live, as well as sleep I need! And, are you sure we should be listening to Wayoshi? He spams the most in the Chat when there are no Ops. Additionally, we should not make Patrollers just to save the Chat. Patrollers have to fight off vandalism on the Wiki, not JUST protect the Chat. If this is such a big deal, why don't you just remove the Chat for good?

Pokemon DP: While Wayoshi motives are indeed dubious, he's right. This whole back-up up thing may make soem of those back-uo operators that they could get promoted to Pattroler status, plus, a back-up operator can only be opped when an actual operator is on the chat, which make the point of their existence kind of moot. Glowsquid

I'm going to remain neutral on this, as both sides have a fair point. 21:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Since I don't use the chat I don't think it's my place to go sticking my nose into issues involving it, however I do think we should have more than one Patroller (for the Wiki in general). - Walkazo

To Dodoman: Don't pay attention to what DP said, he's just a bit upset he won't be able to op Uniju, LB2, etc. 18:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Can we get a solid definition of spam up in here? I know DP is more strict about it than some other moderators, for example.  That might help clear up some of the bad feelings that are going around right here.  18:54, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Most of the spam happening is indeed spam, not DP over-reacting. 20:35, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry for asking, but who exactly are currently ops in the chat? - 11:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * DP, Phoenix Rider, RAP, Porplemontage, KPH2293, YellowYoshi398, Ghost Jam, and Myself. However only RAP, DP, and I are on everyday.
 * And how do you decide who becomes Op? All you listed are also Sysops on the wiki. - 15:01, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Wayoshi: In response to the list of official back-up Ops, I've decided to agree on that. For example, after discussing it with Plumber, Luigibros will NOT be a back-up Op anymore. I'm still thinking about Uniju... Blitzwing seems trustworthy enough. Plumber can act a bit spammy at times, but, I'm sure he wouldn't do anything like what HK did. I'll still watch him, just in case. Also, with Ghost Jam on the Chat, I will lower the amount of Back-up Ops in Chat.

I've only been using the chat extensively for the last two and a half days. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Things has been rather silent, with some little discussion here and there, with only a few people who had to be kicked. -- Chris 20:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * And now I do see what all the fuss is about. -_- -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Alpha, if a back-up tells Steve they're a back-up, he'll add them, like he did with me. 22:30, 27 November 2007 (EST) }}

Improvement Drive
GET RID OF IT 6-0

The improvement drive was created a few time ago, even thought simmilar ideas have been tried and all failed miserably, it seemed like a good idea at time. But now, it's barely edited and the creator (Max2) is blocked from editing forever. As of now, the Improvement drive seem like a waste of database space more than anything, I propose we delete it and state somewhere than project like it were tried and failed, so we won't end up with the idea being brought up again, accpeted, and turn out to be a similar fiasco.

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: 15:00, Dec 2

Get rid of it

 * 1) Glowsquid
 * 2) – I knew this wouldn't work. We are a big community, yes, but it seems mainspace contributors don't work together, as our knowledge is spread out, not concentrated on a particular area (I myself have never played the original SMB). This just won't work consistently.
 * 3) It's a trainwreck, and a waste of our Wiki's space.
 * 12:58, 27 November 2007 (EST) Per All
 * 1) Walkazo - I think we should still have a plain old list of bad articles, that way any old user can see what they can do, and then do it without having all the hooplah about a "weekly collaboration drive" wasting their time along the way.
 * 22:25, 27 November 2007 (EST) Per my original opposition of the project in the first place

Comments
Walkazo: We have that list, it's called Category:Rewrite and Expansion Requested.

Glowsquid

Oh, okay. Thanks! - Walkazo }}

Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)
KEEP 'EM MERGED 10-3

Um, what can I say? If WarioWare, Inc. and WarioWare (stage) are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>).

{{scroll box| content = Proposer Dodoman Deadline December 5, 17:00

Split 'em!

 * 1)  I am the proposer and I like pie.
 * 2) -One's a move, one's a character. Merging them is unnessesary
 * 3) Theryguy They are two different topics!!!!!

Keep 'em merged.

 * 1)  - See my comment below.
 * 2)  per Cobold
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per Cobold;
 * 5) Per The Bold Company
 * 6) I was originally neutral on this Proposal, but, after hearing Cobold's comment, I saw the flaws in spliting them.
 * 7) - per Cobold.
 * 8) User:Girrrtacos - Per Cobold
 * 9) - Per Cobold
 * 10) - per cobold

Comments
WarioWare the company and WarioWare the stage are something entirely different. Wario Man is not, he's a form of Wario in both meanings, just the fact that it's classified as a Special Move in Brawl does not change that. As such, F.L.U.D.D. (SSB attack) got merged with the F.L.U.D.D. article because of redundancy. - 09:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I see we have two different articles for Giga Bowser and Giga Bowser Transformation. What's everyone's take on that? Is this any different? We're going to have to decide which to split/merge, IMO. 22:07, 4 December 2007 (EST)


 * Nice spotting! We should merge the Giga Bowser articles and leave the Wario Man article alone. - Walkazo
 * Thank you! We should still wait to see how the vote turns out, of course, but I'm fine as long as we act for consistency.  19:15, 5 December 2007 (EST)

}}

REMOVE ON ARTICLES 9-0

Recently, I've seen theres been some misuse of on articles. And its not being used for its real purpose, on Notice Templates and such, instead simply saying "This article", while its sometimes being abused in places like real articles, which in most cases is longer then the Page's name itself. So, I propose that be added to Notice Templates and such, and an official rule be passed that its not to be used on articles themselves.

{{scroll box| content = Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: 01:00 9th Dec

Support

 * 1) People are gonna get mad at me for making so many proposals when I never edit... Then maybe they'll make a proposal saying that you need to edit to make proposals, and that edits are kinda like currency to do things on the wiki... Oh yeah, reasons given above, ^^SO READ THEM^^
 * 2) I agree, aka, per Uniju. =P
 * 3) -  should not be used in articles.
 * 4) Per Uniju
 * 22:31, 4 December 2007 (EST) The less we use templates in the body of the articles the better. However... I love templates at the start and end and off to the side, but that doesn't apply here.
 * 1) Walkazo - Using the template is lazy and/or plain stupid.
 * 2) per Stumpers.
 * 3) Glitchman - per Walkazo.
 * 4) User:ND_IRISH_ROCK! Walkazo has a point. If you're going to be lazy, bug some other wiki.

Comments
What are you talking about? --HyperToad 10:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)
 * If you place on an article, it will put the Page's name. Its there for templates and such, but isn't used on them. And lately I've seen people adding it to articles, mostly on images. Thats what we're talking about.
 * What is the harm in using it in articles? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 19:24, 6 December 2007 (EST)
 * Good point, Chris. Sorry I forgot to mention this: (1) page moves, particularly ones such as "Toad" to "Toad (character)" or articles that cover multiple topics being limited to one. (2) If the template ever changes, it will take a lot more work to change the articles back to the old method.  When I say changes I'm thinking about if we wanted to have it link to both the page and the talk page.  Very unlikely, I know, but it's my concern.  Oh... vandalism, too unless the page is locked.  Really, though, all of this is very unlikely.  23:12, 6 December 2007 (EST)
 * Ghost Jam: It usually takes more space then the article's name, and thats not what its there for. Also, Stumpers:... Are you even talking about the pagename thing? :\
 * If it's the template that places the name of the article in place of, then yes.  Think: what if you put that one a page like Ashley, now merged as Ashley and Red?  "When Ashley combed her hair she accidently hit Red with her fist" (yes, it's a fake example) now, that page is called "Ashley and Red", so it would read "When Ashley and Red combed her hair she accidently hit Red with her fist." There you go.  Only careful reading of the article would find that error.  23:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)

}}