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 with the signature code (~).

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) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 10) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM"
 * 11) 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.

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).

So for example, 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 indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 28 2024 (EDT)

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

The Centurion article.
I think we should merge that article. These guys are simply the componement of some attack. If we allow an article on these guy, we should also allow articles on the various Pokemon and Assist Trophy.

Proposer Deadline: February 8, 2008, 20:00

Merge Centurion with Palutena Army

 * 1)  - We had a proposal to get rid of all Smash Bros. article, while it didn't pass, it was right about the wiki putting too much focus on the Smash Bros. article. The existence of this article is a good proof of it.
 * 2)  With the Wing that Blitzes I argree.
 * 3) - Too minor element to warrant its own article.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per all; but Palutena will stay seeing as she's an actual character and part of the Subspace Emissary plot, right?
 * 17:12, 1 February 2008 (EST) Per Blitz

Keep Separate

 * 15:50, 1 February 2008 (EST) I would think we'd want to wait until we see if they have any role in the Subspace Emmissary. If someone knows that they do not, let me know.

Comments
Walkazo: Yep. --Blitzwing 17:30, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * 'Figued that. Thanks. - Walkazo

Correct Operator System
I know everyone is tired of talking about the chat on this wiki, but please, hear me out. Steve currently has "200" powers – founder of #mariowiki, complete control over all settings. When I had my bureaucrat term, I was privileged with "190" – everything the same as 200 except to unregister #mariowiki (i.e. remove ChanServ and all ops). All sysops on the wiki got "100", which allowed them to be auto-oped upon entry in the room to ban & kick when appropriate. The chat was very ho-hum and orderly at that time.

But now? Ever since I stepped down, no one has returned to 190 (Xze should have), and though 100s are valid, "back-up" non-sysops are now receiving 100s also, because, as the Big P declares "the chat is separate from the wiki."

To that I give a polite "no." I'm sorry, Steve, but the chat has been on this wiki for almost a year now. <10% are forum-only users. And now, there are three non-sysops with auto-op powers, one of which I am extremely questionable about, with no consensus from us. As the only person >100 now, Steve, not RAP (who's in chat quite often) or Cobold, is making all the decisions, and as such the chat has been quite a mess for at least a month now, if not more. I understand with more people the chat is harder to control – now 15 people on a weekday is not uncommon. But we had 10 people on spring nights, probably 15 on summer nights too, and everything couldn't have been better. Now, it really couldn't be much worse.

Thus I propose the following:
 * All sysops get 100s, all bureaucrats get 190s. It is not a requirement to chat, but it is strongly encouraged to help keep it in line and child-safe (i.e. no sexual content, etc.) Enough sysops/crats are active in chat for now, so that is not a concern.
 * All non-sysops stay at 0, including patrollers. A patroller and sysop are two completely different things. Patrollers don't have enough privileged rights to earn a 100, though this is debatable.
 * Demotion of op powers also means loss of sysop powers. The chat is CONNECTED TO the wiki.

Proposer: Wayoshi Deadline: 17:00, 4 Febuary 2008 (EDT)

Sysops are Ops, No One Else

 * 1) – per my long-winded text above.
 * 2) Per Wayo. Also i do think thiere are ways for people to lose power but being a syop or crat means you are trusted so you should be in trusted in chat, but that doesnt mean being DE-OPed means being DE-Sysops but like i said before, being a sysop means you are trusted.One more thing THis doesnt mean being a sysop means you ahve to go on chat. I do thing that good OP who arent Sysops should stay OPed since they help.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Wayoshi

Keep Separated Power Groups

 * 1) - As I've stated many many many other times, the chat and forum always seem to be falling apart because their ops/mods are only sysops, so the mods/ops need to both be sysops, and active on that sub-site. However, recently the chat has got these "back-up ops", which are the only thing keeping the chat from being a spam pit around, like... Through almost all of the late morning, through sometime in the after noon, the ops tend to be lacking. While more trusted users who become back-up ops tend to still come on during this time. The Back-up ops are really the only thing keeping this together, you just dislike them because you don't get any time to break rules on chat anymore.
 * 2) - Look, I may be biased because I'm a back-up, but I'm on half the time regular ops aren't. During the course of the day that I am on, operators of the chat usually come around 6:00 PM EST. That's pretty late, considering many Users get on around 2:00 PM EST - 3:00 PM EST. Many times, it is just the other back-up operators and I keeping control. If there are trustworthy Users, why not let them be Operators? It makes no sense, considering the chat is pretty seperate to the Wiki. Look, I don't care if I'm demoted. I just feel that Back-up Ops should be around. I also agree with DP's idea of limiting the amount of them.
 * 3) - There are 24 hours of the day. No sysop or 'crat can stay all 24 hours. And I've seen plenty of times when no sysop is around.
 * 4) - I only disagree about the patroller part. See comment.
 * 5) - Per all. There's no way two people can stay on the chat all day.
 * 6) Per all. I'm not voting because I'm now a back-up op, I'm voting because many back-up ops are on on time that spam mostly occurs because there is no other ops that happens because of all those different and confusing times zone. Me for example, Most part of when I'm usually on there isnt other ops there.
 * 7) - I won't participate in the chat, so giving the power to me is rather pointless - community and wiki are fully apart.
 * 8) This isn't a cheap way for you to return to op status? Yeah I wish I could believe that. We needs Ops around 24/7. We need back ups to ensure that the chat is safe 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I oppose this proposal, not only because we need back ups, but because this IS just a cheap way for you to get your power back. What will you do if you get it back? You'll abuse it, that's what.
 * 9) Out of no disrespect Wayoshi, we've gone through this already, back-ops are very useful in a situation where there are no ops.

Comments
Before I get any complaints / flames, this is NOT a cheap way for me to return to an operator rank. Note that by the proposal if I go awry in chat again, I will also lose something I covet very much: maintaining & improving this wiki with my powers here. This could very well fall flat, but I feel it necessary to finally get a consensus; it's high time we put all disputes of chat to rest. 20:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)
 * I must disagree with the back-up Op removal. However, I am not opposed to limiting them. I believe we should ONLY have two trustworthy back-up Ops. After all, Steve has recently given Uniju and Shroobario 100 level Op powers on chat, but Uni recently cursed like crazy, as well as flame others. Not that I'm flaming Uni or anything, I just don't trust Uni as a back-up Op, neither do I trust Shrooby. We just need more trustworthy Users, like Purple Yoshi or ChaosNinji.

Let it be noted that you already made this, Wayoshi. It failed, remember?

I feel that there should be another answerAlphaclaw11read my comment where i voted

What if the active Sysops were to take a vote before the creation of any back-up operator? That seems fair, considering you said that the back-ups were created without consensus.

I disagree about not giving Patroller OP rights. Patrollers are chosen for their trust-worthyness and their activity, much like sysops are. The power given to the Patrollers is already rather dubious. Limiting their powers even further is rather ludicrous. I agree with the rest, thought.

Ghost Jam, although I know your way too stubborn to change you're mind on this, I must point out that several Sysops have been proven to not be reliable chat ops AT ALL(Wayoshi, You, and Paper Jorge), and that there are many normal chat users that would be much more fit for the op job than such people. I'm not saying that all the sysops shouldn't be chat ops, or that I am superior to the sysops in any way because I'm an op on chat. Also, Porplemontage himself promoted me to back-up op status, and when Pokemon DP asked why he responded that he trusts me. If you don't believe me, go ask DP or Porple.

I disagree, with what you said about demoting ops along with sysop powers, because a good buddy of mine (Paper Jorge) doesn't really set a good example of being an OP (he doesn't curse or flame, but he does spam), however Paper Jorge is a great sysop on the wiki. And another great example is you Wayoshi, who could not be trusted on chat but could be trusted on the wiki. So if an OP demotion (hypothetically) happened to Pokemon DP in chat, we would also lose a great sysop. I think of the relation of our chat/forum to the wiki like this: the Wiki influences the chat/forum, but the forum/chat does not influence the wiki. 20:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Latest Appearance
On the character-infobox template, there is a section for "Latest Appearance". I'd like to establish a consensus on what this means: should this apply solely to released titles or should announced titles have precedence? We must also decide how to deal with multiple release dates. Please be sure to mention in your vote how you'd like to deal with this second issue and we can have another proposal if there is not a clear consensus.

Proposer: (writer) and  (advice) Deadline: February 7, 2008, 17:00 (5:00p)

Put the Latest Released Appearance

 * 19:58, 31 January 2008 (EST) For the reasons above. I feel that the earliest release date for a title (ie, Japanese release date for Brawl) should be used to determine which appearance we use.
 * 1) Per Stumpers and I
 * 2) Per the Stumping Guy above
 * 3) Walkazo - Per All.
 * 4) Per Stumpers and MC
 * 5) SiFi - This has been confusing me for a while.
 * 6) Per Stumpers and Crash.
 * 7) - "Latest" implies that something has already happened, so it can't be in the future. And we should use the first release in any region, that's Japan for most games, but also Europe for Super Mario Strikers.
 * 8) I concur with Stumpers.
 * 9) I agree with Cobold in both points.
 * 10) Per ALL HyperToad
 * 11) per all
 * 12) MarioGalaxy2433g5 The newest announced appearance might change. The character could get removed from the game. Toadette 4evur, I stumped you.
 * 1) per all
 * 2) MarioGalaxy2433g5 The newest announced appearance might change. The character could get removed from the game. Toadette 4evur, I stumped you.

Put the Latest Announced Appearance

 * 1) I think making it the latest announce appearance make makes more sense because latest appearance means the last time the character was seen, it has nothing to do with the fact that an event already happened. If a game is in development that means it's happening, and if the character is confirmed that means that they appear in the game. Can't stump me here! >=)Toadette 4evur 12:47, 3 February 2008 (EST) *go me!*

Comments
I don't believe that this was needed to be a proposal, but it DID have to be delt with. HyperToad
 * I was pretty sure there would be a concensus, but I just thought: "We have this system, and there is no possible conflict if we use this system, so...." Oh, by the way, I was wondering how you guys would feel if we mentioned the latest appearance in each region, so it would be something like this:
 * JP: Super Smash Bros. Brawl
 * US: Mario Party DS
 * PAL: Mario Party DS
 * AU: Mario Party DS
 * 14:35, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * Just asking, what's the difference between EUR and PAL? PAL is the name for the video standard used in Europe. - 14:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * Sorry, I meant AU. I have a beast of a cold right now.  I've made the corrections.  Anyway, there are some games with different release dates for PAL and AU, I found out.  Thanks for catching that.  15:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * Cobold, "latest appearance" means the last time the character was seen. It has nothing to do with if an event already happened or not. *I ROCK at this! =)* Toadette 4evur 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

I was just starting to wonder if my name makes people combative... guess it does... :*( Does it?  Toadette, my responce to your position is that some games are cancled, etc.  Plus, how do you know which future release to put there?  Sometimes there are more than one appearance scheduled as TBA or TBA 2009, etc.  Anyway, my apologies for all of the trouble that you and other users have had with this arguement.  15:32, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Bob Hoskins Quote
This was brought up by the Bob Hoskins article, which has the "F-Word" written three times in a quote that supposedly came from the guy himself. It has been a huge contreversy, and has been argued back and forth. I propose we remove the quote entirely.

Proposers: and Glitchman

Deadline: Sunday, February 10, 15:00

Get Rid of It

 * 1) I'm not afraid of the word. I hear it multiple times every day. Heck, I've even used it once or twice. But we don't need it here.
 * 2) Mcoolister It's evil! Get rid of it.
 * 3) Per InfectedShroom
 * 4) MarioGalaxy2433g5 I hear too many cuss words at school.... make it stop!!!!!
 * 5) Per InfectedShroom and myself.  Also, see my comment below.
 * 6) Little kids view this wiki!

Keep It There

 * 1) I don't care about it
 * 2) This is an encyclopedia, we don't censor things. --
 * 3) Censoring an encyclopedia is one of the absurdest things you can do. It is fact that Hoskins used this word to describe his feelings, and there is no sense in changing that on this wiki. Once we start to censor, when is there an end? Are we gonna ban the phrase "what the heck" tomorrow? That's ridiculous. 13:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 * 4) Ultimatetoad per everyone else.
 * 5) I can't justify loosing information, but I can justify censoring it.  But, if it's removed in totality, we can't censor it, so I think this is the side I should be on...
 * 6) Per Time Q. In paper Encyclopedia, do you see things like "BECAUSE IT MAY BE OFFENDING TO YOUNGER READER, THE FOLLOWING DEPICTION OF HUMAN GENITALIA HAVE BEEN CENSORED"? No. It's a fact that Bob Hoskin used the F-bomb, we shouldn't remove it because Kids are browsing the wiki.

Comments
Blag, I am more than tired of this whole ordeal. Why we just don't remove the farking quote already? All it do is cause problem. --Blitzwing 12:52, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 * Then just say you want to get rid of it. Please.

InfectedShroom: What do you suggest to do if the community decided to "get rid of it"? Remove it completely or censor that bad, bad word? 14:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 * Lemme rephrase the whole thing. Better?
 * Thanks, that's more explicit. 14:31, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Think of the children who use this site. Do they really want to see that?
 * Like InfectedShroom said: They see it everyday, everywhere. And: This is no children's wiki, this is Mario Wiki. An encyclopedia that covers everything about Mario. Even this quote. Mario content doesn't imply that everything is safe for children. Kids do also watch the news, which contain much violence. Should news be censored, just because children are watching? 15:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Just a question: why can't we just use "f***ing" and stuff like that? If I were a parent and found that on this Wiki, I wouldn't allow my kids to come here. Also, the arguement about the news: those shows censore out the f-bomb and don't show blood and gore, so in a sence just staring out the u, c, k would make us more news-ish than if we kept it here. 15:40, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 * I believe that InfectedShroom (and myself) was right. Not only has this lone quote caused much controversy in the Mariowiki world, but this obscene word has been added to the quote not once, not twice, but THREE times.  The Mariowiki was created as an encyclopedia to the Marioverse for kids and young adults, and why do you need to have a quote like that on any site, much less one for young people?!  That movie not only sucked, it has very little to do with the Marioverse at all.  I'm not saying that the article should be deleted, but the quote should be removed.  Or at least, have users be warned of the cursing in the quote.  Stumpers also has a good point.


 * Ummm.... Glitchman, are you going to vote on your (I mean both you and InfectedShroom) proposal? MarioGalaxy2433g5 15:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 * Yes, I did just now.

Stumpers: I suggested that in the first place. But removing the thing entirely makes the contreversy end entirely.
 * Hm. I'll remove my vote for know I think then.  I don't think we should loose that bit of history about the movie.  It's one of the few bits we have about the production of it.  Censoring, I'm for, but avoiding news isn't our job as an encyclopedia.  I'm sorry... :(  16:09, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 * DANGIT. I can't help both sides, though. DANGIT AGAIN.

Crypt Raider: Yeah, and little kids also read dictionaries. And those contain all the bad words. And why? Because they're neutral, descriptive, and not prescriptive. This is how encyclopedias should work. If we censor words, this is some form of POV - which we don't want to have here. So, basically, I don't get your "children" argument, sorry. 16:27, 3 February 2008 (EST)