MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/15



Poll Selection Page
REORGANIZE 7-0

I looked at the Poll selection page, and I have to admit something: It is a disaster. So here is what I am proposing: We clean it up. To get more into detail: If this is passed, and it works, we can make suggesting and voting on new polls easier, quicker, and more efficient. Also, this plan can reduce loading time for the pages. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: Friday, 3 July 2009, 20:00
 * We have it split into multiple pages with 25 suggested polls on each page (In example, we have MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page1, MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page2, and so forth. We can link them together with a table like on the Proposals Archive, for example.
 * No signatures. I know this was already a rule, but many users either A) Get around the rules by putting the images as they are in their signature and then putting the allowed coding. B) Flat out ignore the rule and post a signature. After a while, when users start doing this, it becomes out of hand to deal with the problem. All in all, what I am saying here is: You are only allowed to sign with or Whatever.
 * Other laws of organization: Basically, if/when this proposal passes, we enforce these rules on a regular basis, and if it is necessary, make rules to adapt to new situations. This is obvious, but it did not seem to work on the page.

Reorganize Poll Selection Page

 * 1) Per my reasoning above and Timmy Tim's vote below.
 * 2) It's falling apart and needs mending. Deleting repeat polls and one with more opposers than supporters will also have to be done.
 * 3) - Agreed. I've been wanting to do that by posting messages on the Poll Selection talk page and asking if I actually could do it, but a proposal definitively is the best way to enforce these rules and make that "disaster" a good page. If you need help with it, I'm up to the job. (I don't know if that expression exists, but w/e :P)
 * 4) - Of course, this will make it even more difficult to delete polls that are opposed or non-mario-related. After this proposal passes, hopefully I will be able to find a way to get around this.
 * 5) - Aye per Super Mario Bros. It takes too long to load the polls page; its content is too large.
 * 6) I am Zero! I sort of like and dislike (50/50) the idea of splitting the poll selection page into several pages. The no signature rule doesn't need to be enforced, nobody use signatures in the new polls. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Lu-igi board 15:22, 3 July 2009 (EDT)about time.

Comments
Paper Yoshi, I'm sorry to say I can't have your help in reorganizing the page right now, but in helping to observe the rules and help keeping it cleaned after I finish reorganizing it will help me a whole lot, as we might as well not do the proposal if the page is going to get messed up again. So, once again, to help me, all you need to do is keep the page clean once I'm finished. Thank you for your wanting to help me though.

- How are you going to be able to get rid of the signatures that cover most of the polls already? I'm sure your not going to delete all those polls?
 * No, I'm not deleting polls based on signatures, the signatures in question can easily be changed to acceptable forms of signing. The only polls that are going to be deleted are the ones with two more opposes than supporters. For a more in depth version of my plan, check my other comment below.
 * Well, here is my plan. First, I am going to, as Timmy Tim suggested, delete the polls that have two more opposes than supporters. Then, I am going to take the remaining ones and put them on separate pages, each page holding a maximum of 25 polls, and they will be linked to each other by a table (similar to the Proposals Archive pages). After that, I am going to change the signatures to   coding, therefore completing my plan and reorganizing the Polls Page. The pages, however, need to be maintained and kept organized. This should reduce loading time and make the Poll Selection page(s) more presentable, among other benefits that are gained from this project.
 * - It's not really a question of how easy it is to change the signatures, but how long it will take. But if you have the time to change every signature on the poll page, then go ahead. ps. I was the one that made the rule to delete polls with 2 more opposers than supporters
 * If it passes, I should be finished organizing the day it meets deadline.

}}

Enforce No-Signature Policy
ADD NEW RULES 3-0

I feel that the "No-Signature Policy" on many of the pages around the wiki have been utterly violated. Many of the users like to use the "letter of the law" technique as opposed to the "spirit of the law", which, in other scenarios, is okay, but is not good to this policy. Due to many pages that feature the "No-Signature Policy" having limited space, they cannot touch upon the many ideas that were originally expressed when this "policy" went into enactment. As of such, as I stated earlier, many users dodge the rules (see the second bullet in my above proposal about the Poll Selection page). As of such, I would like to create one page that has detailed rules on the subject, and that could be linked to pages that share these many ideas. The page, if created, would most likely be titled  MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy . A rough draft of my proposed page can be located here.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} (With great advice from {{User|Walkazo}}) Deadline: Sunday, 5 July 2009, 15:00

Make the New Page

 * 1) Remember, this proposal was not made to prevent this from happening, it was made to stop what is currently going on and prevent it from happening again in the future.
 * 2) - We can use a page like that to explain why we need to enforce the use of the -Template instead of personalized signatures.
 * 3) - Sounds good. Per all.

Comments
On what pages exactly has this rule been violated? What pages are under this rule, anyway? - 17:36, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Technically, the rule has been violated on the featured images page as well as the poll selection page, which say that no signatures are allowed. Most times, signatures are frowned upon because of the images or size, that they ruin counting and slow computers down, among others. Users, instead, post the image and then allowed coding. They basically dodge the rules, so they are technically not breaking them in the way that they are stated, but they are skipping around the original intents that the rules stated were based on. Which is why I proposed this, to make a policy that is more in depth and that can be linked to on these pages.

I made changes on the page that is linked to. Walkazo gave me some great suggestions, and I incorporated them into the rules list.
 * More changes have been made. Credit goes to Walkazo for the changes, she is really helping me with the ideas for the page.

I find it ridiculous and annoying that almost all proposals these days are about signature rules.
 * I know, I hate making them just as much, but when we have users that dodge rules, it has to be done. Plus, this should be the last proposal about signatures (other problems about the signatures can be dealt with by a minor proposal, per say, on the discussion of a page that needs to deal with signature problems).

}}

Article censorship
NO CENSORING 12-0

I want to settle this once and for all. Do we want to censor the Bob Hoskins article or not?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|Clear Discoherency}} Deadline: 11 July 2009, 20:00

Don't censor it

 * 1) We are a wiki dedicated to using full information on Mario, I wouldn't say to censor it
 * 2) - This has been settled once and for all - on many occasions! This is an encyclopedia: our mandate is to communicate as many facts about Mario as we can, and that includes profane quotations. We do not censor anything. Fortunately, in the case of Bob Hoskins, there is a way to communicate his negative attitude towards the Super Mario Bros. film without including the f-word, and we decided to go with option a while ago to avoid this reoccurring nightmare of a debate.
 * 3) &mdash;An encyclopedia's goal is to report accurate information. We are under no obligation to censor facts just because people could potentially be offended by a simple word. It is the parent's responsibility to teach their children right and wrong, not ours. Our only goal is to report facts relating to the Mario series.
 * 4) I guess every body else is right.
 * 5) Per all. Why not put up a warning template or something like that?
 * 6) I am Zero! A warning template will be a better idea. But I agree with this proposal, first of all SMW is a free encyclopedia that gives information on anything Mario[-related], second we are trying to make Mariowiki as close as possible to Wikipedia with alternations on this webpage, I said that because, in Wikipedia, I don't have an account there but I can still go to an article about a vag***, te*******, se*, and pe*** with pictures and detail and a movie article called Fu** without them being cencored, and last of all on a side-note, try to make your proposal more convinsing. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per All
 * 8) Per Zero
 * 9) - Though on the original proposal I was for censoring it, now I just don't see the point. Whatever.
 * 10) As I have stated in the past, a wiki is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not censor information.
 * Per all. I'm glad to see so many people are against censoring an encyclopedia. Nowhere do we claim that this is a kid-friendly wiki, in fact this is "a collaborative knowledge-base about everything in the Marioverse" (see here), and censoring conflicts with this objective.
 * 1) Per all.

Comments
I think this younger person stuff is bullcrap because if we all know what a swear is then how is exposing us to a swear gonna hurt us? Explain that smb.
 * Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok? we are supposed to be an age-friendly wiki. Movies and games themselves are rated PG-13 and T for Teens when swear words are present, and we are supposed to be a G-rated or E for Everyone wiki. So why do you want your bullshat so bad, huh?

I wouldn't think it would by true to the quote by changing quotes however. Why would anyone care about a quote with the f-word in it? Yknow I used to not swear at all but when I realized it was pointless to not swear I swear all the time now.
 * Yes, that may be the case for you, but others try not to or don't like to. I myself do not like to curse. I find it vulgar and unnecessary. If we censor it, readers still understand that a curse word is being said, so what is the loss?

This whole edit war is pointless anyway. Its only going on because Max2 acted immature about a little swear

Enough of the flamey remarks, already. We have no mandate to be a "kid-friendly" Wiki, all we are obligated to do is tell the truth. Every time someone goes on the Internet, they run the risk of running into profanity, or worse, and heck, you take the same exact risk everything you go outside. It's not our responsibility to shield little kids from words they are gonna learn sooner or later, and if it interferes with our abilities to communicate all the Mario-centric information at our disposal, we shouldn't even be trying. In the case of Bob Hoskins we can preserve most of that quote without profanity; it was a compromise many agreed on, and it still stands. -
 * And to you, Walkazo, a proposal has been made, I'm not going to be shut up. I find it ridiculous that this is considered flaming, or that you consider this flaming, as I am stating my point of view.

I'm done arguing and wasting my breath about this even though it was pointless in the first place. Go ahead and go eat each other if you want I'm setting this one out.
 * Yeah, ok.

In response to SMB's earlier comment: A) I said "flamey", not "flaming". B) I wasn't talking about the proposal itself, I was talking about the comments: "So why do you want your bullsh*t so  bad, huh?" "Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok?" "Explain that smb." - that's all egging each-other on, which is "flamey" - you're both rearing for a fight, and that's not acceptable, so just cool your jets. -

In response to Walkazo: Ok. Directed towards CD: Please delete this proposal. If the edit war is pointless, please just delete it. You should have dealt with Max2 yourself or had another user, perhaps sysop or bureaucrat, deal with him.
 * Since it's your proposal, you have to delete it. -

It is not mine, CD created it.
 * True... Sorry, I was just commenting based on the fact CD commented first and usually it's someone besides the Proposer who comments first... Plus it's late and I'm tired... -
 * It's ok. i'm tired too. Ah forget it. I'm just going to remove my vote. i will probably wake up in the morning and realize that everybody else was right. Anywho, sorry for any flaming I could have almost started.

Just to be clear, is this only for Bob Hoskins? Because Princess_Toadstool_for_President has the word "fuck" in it, and it'd be nice to have it set in stone somewhere what happens when this inevitably comes up again.

Per twenty of two seven, walka please look at his points then tell me if we shouldn't have the word "fuck" in the Bob Hoskins article.--Clear Discoherency 01:03, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

The deadline is up now anyway too bad we havn't reached a verdict besides walka's answer
 * That's because the deadline was off. Proposals are supposed to be up for exactly one week. This hasn't even lasted a day. Anyway, it's been fixed. &mdash;

Well, it's 4-0 against censorship, which is a pretty clear verdict. But, if it only applies to Bob Hoskins, then that's not so much of an accomplishment of policy making. Now, I'm not sure why exactly there would be a need for a proposal so specific, but that's what the text seems to imply. After all, we can't really say "no lol it meant this," and expect it not to raise issues. Or, at least, I see it that way. 01:24, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

"walka" is me, right? Pertaining to 2257's example, "jävla" has to be included in order to properly explain Bowser's "Din jäv-" quotation, and if we have the Swedish swear, why not the English equivalent? Still, like the Bob Hoskins quote, I suppose it would be possible to just leave the whole Trivia point as this, and still cover all the bases: In the Swedish dub, when Bowser gets smacked by the kid, he says "Din jäv-", but stops himself, as the word he was about to utter is a profanity. This can be compared to a truncated "F-" exclamation in English. Personally, I think the whole "jävla" exposition is interesting, but it's not essential, so I can see why removing it (and the full Bob Hoskins quote) is a reasonable compromise in the face of these sort of heated debate. "Fuck" is simply not worth the trouble. -


 * My point is that this might will come up again in the future, so it would be nice to have an actual policy about it. Rather than arguing about it later, we could get it over with and use this as a policy for when censorship debates rise up again. And there's actually other pages with profanity, that was just an example. 02:02, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
 * We need a lot more official policies around here... I think the standing unofficial policy on profanity is that "We're an encyclopedia, and as such, we do not censor our articles. However, users are asked to use their discretion when dealing with profanity on the Wiki mainspace." We could easily add some sort of rule along those lines to a policy page somewhere, maybe with links to any text previously written about flaming and vandalism, so that people will know the difference between using curse words academically and using them in an unacceptable, vulgar manner. -

Couldnt we just replace the word with F*** or sonething along those lines? This has been blown out of proportion.
 * - Why don't we just create a censored version and a non-censored version? This way, we can warn users that the non-censored one is bad for them!

}}

Update One After Another
DO NOT UPDATE ONE AFTER ANOTHER 4-8

I propose that everything on the main page like featured article, featured image, poll, and did you know sections should all be updated between one hour to one day after another, it doesn't really matter in what order they should be in, just as long as they are updated, and there time limit should be one week of staying in the main page, Mario news and proposal section should be the only exceptions. I said this because one time the "did you know" section, it had the same three trivias stayed there for about three months and like six months ago on the poll section it didn't work on some computers. The main page is sometimes confusing to keep track of even if your'e a user or just a visitor to the site, so that is why I came up with this idea.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Zero777}} Deadline: Monday, 13 July 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! A lot of users will agree on this idea, since its simple but it affects not only users but also visitors coming to the SMW. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Zero.
 * 3) Per Zero.
 * 4) Per Zero.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my first 2 comments below.
 * OK, I think it should be more like, the quote updates every hour, the image every day and the article every week.
 * 1) - Just be glad they get turned over at all. The Wiki is very high-maintenance, and the last thing the few people who have enough initiative to update these features need is an arbitrary schedule to try and follow.
 * 2) Per Walkazo
 * 3) per Walkazo
 * Per Walkazo. Also, I like the way the main page is updated now. I do agree with you (Zero777), though, that the Did You Know section should be updated more often. But obviously there just aren't any users wo would like to do that, and you can't force someone to do it.
 * 1) Per Walkazo
 * 2) - Per all. We don't have more of 1000 featured articles in the wiki as to show them all every day (though we're happy we have a nice number of FAs). However, that's true the "Did you know...?" section should need a scheduled update.

Comment
Not to be rude, but that would screw up the Featured Article and/or Featured Images schedule, each one is only supposed to be up on the Main Page for a week, it's not that simple, even though it seems minor, this would require a lot of work during a day. 18:47, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Plus, we don't control the Quote of the Day, it is randomly selected by a program. I agree with you on the subject of the "Did You Know" section, that could use work. 18:52, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * What's funny is that I make 1 proposal about the Poll Selection page, and we get a swarm of them after it passes. 19:02, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

}}

No Signature Policy on FA Pages
APPLY NO SIGNATURE POLICY TO FA PAGES 7-0

OK, I'm pretty nervous, this is my first proposal and I have no idea how to do it. I've asked Walkazo and I think she explained it well so bear with me. I think that the proposals for featured articles and proposals to unfeature articles are very good and put power even in the hands of the users and for this, I commend whoever helped make it. The only problem with this system (according to me) is the fact that those pages do not observe the no-signature policy. When I look at the nomination for Luigi, I see a giant mess of names and pictures which really distracts me from the point of the page. If we could just add the rule that the page follows the no-signature policy then we could follow some of the most important parts of the wiki, without getting a headache. I know this may inconvenience several users but you can show your signature off on almost every single page on the wiki! Why does it have to be on an FA page.

The pages for Featured Image, Featured Poll and even this page follow that policy, so why shouldn't the Featured Article be like the Featured Image or the Featured Poll?

Thank you and I hope you consider my proposal carefully before voting.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Deadline: July 15, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Well, it is my proposal, do I have to rewrite what I said here? P.S. Thanks SMB!
 * 2) Why would I oppose? I like the idea... And what do you mean too much work? In fact, to prove you wrong, I would like to offer at least a little help in this project.
 * 3) Makes sense to me. Per all.
 * 4) - Per Marioguy1. Seeing as all the other voting pages follow the No-Signature Policy, it seems like an oversight that it's taken until now to include the FA pages as well.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) I am Zero! Good idea, there should be a no-sig policy in the FAs. Zero signing out.
 * 7) per all Lu-igi board 13:09, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Comments
Basically to sum this up, read the title, it says everything.

If this proposal passes successfully, please do not edit all the signatures on the existing FA nomination pages, because that would manipulate the date of the last edit, and this date is important (nominations that haven't been edited in a month are deleted).

Fine but what if we see a user edit the page, then can we take advantage of the situation and get rid of my headache forever?
 * Yes, that would be fine.

}}