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) There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by Bureaucrats. Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).

The times are in EDT, 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 (EST)

User Page of the Month
There are many excellent user pages, like Stooben Rooben's, so i say they should be prized, so why not making an user page of the month award?

Proposer: Deadline:Thursday, November 27th, 5:00pm

Support

 * 1) Per me
 * 2) I say it would be the user that does alot of good edits and it would have a talk page that could vote for someone and if enough people agree BANG.They win.
 * 3) I oppose, but Stooben Rooben ROCKS!

Oppose

 * 1) - User Pages are not the point of the Super Mario Wiki, Mario is. Users may care about Community and whatnot, but random Guests looking for Mario information won't, it would just be in their way. Plus, it'd be making some Users seem "better" than others, which is something we've always striven against, and rightly so.
 * 2) - I agree with everything Walkazo said. People may also be biased towards one another.
 * 3) Per all. User page are just for fun their not for FA.
 * 4) Per all. FA user pages will be kinda odd. Not all User Pages are alike, for example look at Stooben Rooben's, than look at Mine. You see, everybody has differnt tastes. Not everybody was created equal.
 * 5) - If we voted against image of the week because "it would be too opinion based," this would be even more so... sorry. :(
 * 6) - Per all. We aren't the 'Super Userpage Wiki' are we?
 * 7) – like cool user lists, this would create competition.
 * 8) - That might cause that users centre on editing their user pages rather than articles. No.
 * 9) - Per Grandy02.
 * 10) -  Per all. I could think of countless reasons against this one.
 * 11) - Per all. Plus, we don't have enough active users for such a thing to even workout anything like good.
 * 12) If we were to even try this, it would probably be more appropriate for Userpedia. Even there, just no.
 * 13) per all. This takes away from more important aspects of the wiki.

Comments
I greatly appreciate the compliment, Tucayo! But, I believe that things like this are outlawed.
 * I still voted against, just in case it's not. -
 * Yeah NG right everone I mean everuser has there own persona.


 * Um don't you means support?


 * Well, this would not work, because the user page is more to tell about the user, but if there was a USER of the month, that might work. The user must have been a user for a certain amount of time (2-4 months?) and must have done a certain number of edits, not on his userpage. Once someone has been elected user of the month, they may not be user of the month untill next year (for example, if mr. marioman 9909 got elected in march 2010, he may not be elected again until April 2011.) The winner would be announced in the shroom, as part of the monthly report? To make sure this will not be a distraction from editing articles, only a few people from the shroom would be a part of this. Even then, I'm not sure it will pass.


 * Your idea is nice.
 * No it's not (no offense); popularity contests are nothing but trouble. Electing Users of the Month is even worse than User Pages of the Month, for the same reasons Stooben Rooben, Wayoshi and I posted against the latter: bias, competition and egomania (or lack thereof if you don't get voted for). -
 * I thought Userpedia already had that. The main page in Userpedia has a box fo FA Users.
 * Okay then, ignore my above comment. I just thought of it as a way to show off hardworking users. But as I said, that probrably wont work.
 * Last time I checked Userpedia, the FAs were about the articles about the Users, not about the Users themselves. -
 * That's exactly what it is. That's why it says "Featured Article", and not "Featured User" or "User of the Month". We're trying our best to avoid being biased, while trying to improve features on our site.
 * Yeah thats what I meant.

Removals
None at the moment.

Splits & Merges
''None at the moment.

Using Cheat Sites as References
and I recently found out that the Mario Super Sluggers page uses a cheat site as a reference. This doesn't seem very professional. Cheat sites often contain unofficial information, have no proof to verify their "facts", and commonly have fake cheats. In my opinion, we should avoid linking to cheat sites because of this. After all, this wiki is not a game guide, it is an encyclopedia. We usually write articles on games and levels in a walkthrough manner, yet it does not refer directly towards the reader. We do not place cheat codes on our articles; we do not place game hacks on are articles. Why link to a cheat page when we don't allow cheats directly on an article in the first place? So, here's my proposition: we keep writing articles in the same fashion we have been – a neutral, third person walkthrough style. We always have allowed hints in our articles as long as they are written in a walkthrough manner. So, in turn, we should stop adding links to cheat sites to our articles as references.

Proposers: and Deadline: November 20, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per my and Luigi001's reasons provided above.
 * 2) Kinda obvious why...
 * 3) I agree. We are and Mario Wiki a site for informantion about the Mario series and it only. We don't need codes since they have noting to do with Mario series. We are not gamespot, gamefaq or Open Code Wiki!!!
 * 4) - Per All.
 * 5) Wow, never noticed that. Off with the site! that has NOTHING to do with mario.
 * 6) - Per all. (2 people working together - "TEAM POWER"... or something)
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per all, especially SR, 001, and PGB. We aren't a cheat website; we're a natural created Mario-info website.
 * 9) - I definitely agree, it's not professional enough to cite a cheats website. Now, it's better than some FreeWebs website, but still.

Oppose

 * 1) - I don't think we should write about cheats, but I think banning the cheat sites is going about that the wrong way. A cheat site may tell a player how to get unlimited money, but it could also offer information which we should be including (i.e. unused sprites, glitches, etc.), and not doing so because of where it came from would be a mistake. Yes, there is lots of misinformation out there, but really, any fansite could perpetrate it, not just the hackers.
 * 2) - Yeah, after the big issue I made, here I am opposing again.  I can't believe I completely forgot this issue: your definition of cheat sites isn't spelled out at all.  As we've seen below, there was much confusion over whether IGN would count as a reference.  The sensible thing to do would be to judge on a point-by-point basis whether a source was valid or not.  In the case you referred to, the obvious answer would be no, but in the cases that Walkazo presented, it'd be completely different.
 * 3) - Per all.

Comments
Now for those who I know are going to say, "We already have a rule on this," think twice. Why would that bit of info be put on the page in the first place? And did anyone try to delete it? No, no they did not. I even tried to delete it, but a day later, there it was again! So before anyone says what I know is coming, please do think again!

Since when did we write walkthrough-style articles? I thought the focus of level/world pages was general information: enemies, special items, plot line, etc.; not "Mario jumped into the third pipe to the right of the door and found a Blue Coin."-type exposition... -
 * He's means little bits of info on how to get through a level. Just look at the World articles; they say the basic way to get through a level. But still, that's not the point here. The point is whether to keep these "cheat site" resourses or not.
 * Er... You're not talking about IGN, are you? They're not only a cheat site, you know... If you're not talking about them, please tell me. :O
 * IGN, Gamespot, 1-Up, and others can still be used as citations, as long as it's pertaining to things such as reviews or official interviews. That actual cheat part is the only thing that we want to get rid of. Also, Walkazo: Luigi001 said it just as I would have. The level/world articles explained the layout of a level, what enemies are found there, etc.; but they also explain how to get through a level. That's what I meant by "walkthrough-style".
 * As the person who added the "cheat codes" in the first place and who put them back when Luigi001 removed them on the basis of looking "unprofessional," I think it's telling that I see your logic. Now, had you just posted a message on my talk page about this issue, explaining why it looked unprofessional as you did above rather than running right to the proposal page, I would have backed right down like I am now.  Not to critique your actions, but this really was something that could have been settled "out of court" so to speak, and is the sort of thing I've handled many times before with other uses.  Anyway, I'll remove my oppose vote straight away if you address it - it's simply about an oversight I felt you made in the proposal.
 * Actually, I was going to. But I got kind of nervous and went to ask Stooben on his opinion. He said he agreed with my case, and we should make a proposal so everyone is clear we don't want these sources. Who's to say that another user wouldn't add it again after you and only you backed out from it? So this proposal is completely necessary.
 * Gotcha. For future reference, you should never feel nervous to criticize my work.  There's always the possibility I'll argue back until a solution is reached (I wouldn't have in this case), but it's surprising how many people on this Wiki place the good of it above what they've already written.  In any case, I hope I'm not giving off an intimidating vibe!  I'm always for what you're striving for: writing down an unwritten rule of the Wiki, but this proposal is placing so much emphasis on the inclusion of that one blog post that I put up.  You guys are against, "cheat sites," like the one I posted, according to the proposal.  However, the "cheat site" in question was actually a blog.  Obviously, you aren't talking about "blogs" but that's what you're saying by targeting this one instance of a "cheat site," which happens to be the first we've had in ages.  By all means make a proposal about this issue, but please, for future reference, targeting one instance makes the user who's edit is being brought into question feel threatened and more importantly takes away from your aims.  Please clarify this for me: this is what I assume you want, but what isn't necessarily written. (1) Rather than "cheat sites" (which would include IGN), you want to stop people from writing about hacks, cheats, mods, etc. (2) You are not against in-game, official cheat codes that expand gameplay, but you would be against posting a code intended to let players continue their games.  (3) The issue is not with my one edit, but rather the philosophy that people could possibly derive from that edit: that cheats are acceptable to post on this site.
 * Yup. No, no, it's not you at all. I just was never the "personal debate" type! :P Well, you basically hit our achievements from this proposal right on the dot; We are against using cheat sites (or Blogs with cheats!) for resources on the Wiki. It looks very unprofessional, and well, that's not good for a Wiki attempting to be serious on a video game series. Offical cheats for the games are fine, but all others should be excluded. The game SimCity DS, not saying we have in article of it, is a prime example. The game has official "codes," if you will, to unlock landmarks. Because these were intentionally in the game, they'd be fine to mention. However, a cheat to get unlimited money or something should be excluded, as it isn't offically given in the game. And yes, as odd as it may seem, we can never know that with this one edit posted, many others will feel the right to link to IGN's cheats, or another site along those lines. As I've said, it's unprofessional looking and such. This proposal is just to see that all agree to "lay down the law" of no use of cheat site resources. Wait...did that make sense?
 * I'd like to apologize for Stumpers if he thought that we were directing this proposal directly to him; that was not the case. I've noticed this problem since I've been here, but I always tried to revert the citations. Actually, I recall using IGN cheats as a citation at one point, but I realized that it wasn't official. The proposal is only directed to banning using unofficial cheat sites for references. If say, Nintendo were to release official cheats on one of their official sites, then it would be fine to use it as a citation/reference. Sites such as Gamespot, IGN, 1-Up, and others contain cheats from unofficial sources – random members who add cheats. Half of them are hoaxes. This is the only point of the proposal.
 * Stooben and Luigi: thanks for such calm, sensible answers. Since the point has now been clarified, I'm fine with removing my oppose.
 * Well, now that you're opposing again, let me ask this: How do you know the glitches, sprites, and such are real? I mean, as Stooben has said, half of those are random people posting hoax information. If the glitches or what not were real, don't you think a more reliable source would show them? I take this example from my own life, because when I loved Super Mario Sunshine, I really wanted to find more about it. So I came across cheat/glitch sites like IGN or GameSpot, and several glitches were just bad hoaxes. I remember one saying "Use the Rocket Nozzle to blast up and off of the Blue Coin Building, and you'll find a glitched version of it in mid-air." Now, is that really believable? So maybe if you fhnd an interesting "fact" on one of these sites, check other, more official ones to see if it's true. I'm not saying cheat sites are always stuffed with fake info, just that there are more reliable sites out there.
 * Well it best to test them to see if they're real.
 * To Stumpers: Well, what we're targeting here is the banning of user-submitted cheats. By this, I mean that on sites such as IGN and Gamestop, there are many members that randomly submit cheats. Using IGN or Gamestop or whatever as a reference is fine for matters such as reviews, images, or other information. Nintendo has been known to reveal cheats, but they are rarely seen. Whenever a cheat handed out by Nintendo is seen, it will almost always say something along the lines of "submitted by Nintendo". User-submitted cheats always say "submitted by ". Grapes: That's a very good point, but sometimes cheats are very hard to pull off, people may not have the game, etc.
 * Um don't you mean glitches?
 * No, this proposal isn't targeting glitches. Glitches aren't seen very often on gaming guides, and even when they are, I don't recall ever seeing them used as a citation. 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
 * Si! I know but you said cheat were hard to pull off?
 * Yes, sometimes they can be. Like in Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, there's a cheat in Peach's Castle Grounds where you can get a hole in one on a PAR 5 course, but it's very hard to do.

List of Quotes Pages
IMPORTANT NOTE: As this Proposal is inevitably heading towards an epic fail, I have decided to remove it and take the advice of suggesting it as a new PipeProject. Go to the PipeProjects page to see it.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.