MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/33

Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA Nominations
AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE FAN VOTES 7-0

There have been far too many times where I have seen someone support or oppose the nomination or denomination of a featured article simply because of the fact that they like the character or enjoy the game or whatever. These kinds of votes have no place here, where articles are featured based on their ability to represent the best that the wiki has to offer, not on any personal preference. However, we still have to go through the process of getting three people, at least one of which has to be an admin, to vote to remove his vote and then waiting 24 hours before finally being able to remove it. Enough of these votes can stall either kind of nomination until they have no way of passing when they shouldn't even be there in the first place. So, what I propose is to outright disallow these kinds of votes from being used. If they are used, they're to be removed without going through the longer removal process (for unfeature nominations) or deleting the reasons and leaving the vote (for feature nominations).

Proposer: Deadline: March 30, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Supporting.
 * 2) Per proposal, this should hopefully get rid of the fanvote stopping Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time getting unfeatured. EDIT: Articles should be featured/unfeatured on (lack of) quality, not I like this
 * 3) but i liek dat game hav it feachured rite nao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Support; that example is not a vote, just pure bias.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) This proposal is made by my favorite color! It should pass! But really, those types of votes do nothing other than unnecessarily slow the FA process. We should remove them on site. Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) — Here's what it is up to today (no user cited is real, just examples):
 * " Plz feature this game cuz i liek it!!!!! PLZ!!!!!!"
 * " its an awsome charcter so it shuld be fetured"
 * " i hate gombas so it must be unfetured"
 * " yoshi is so cute he must be fetured he is sooooo cute!!!"
 * Things like these should definitely be cleared out. Per all.

Make an iPhone/iPad app
DO NOT CREATE APP 1-14

My idea is to make an app for the iPhone or iPad that links you straight to the wiki. Since not entirely nessecary, it should be free. I got this idea because Khan Academy has the exact same thing as I'm suggesting. What's more, we'll be the FIRST wiki to do this!

Proposer: Deadline: April 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Make an app

 * 1) Per proposal.

Don't make an app

 * 1) &mdash; You yourself state that creating an app is unnecessary. Why would the Wiki garner from a completely unnecessary addition that isn't even provided by the Wiki itself, but some other second-party or alternatively third-party management getting in the way? I just don't see it improving the Wiki at all.
 * 2) It's impractical, it'll be annoying to create in the first place, and it's simply unnecessary for both the average wiki visitor and the average wiki editor.
 * 3) Per all, completely unneccesary.
 * 4) Like what the other's said
 * 5) That is just useless.
 * 6) Like Phoenix said somewhere other than here, why would we need an app when a home screen shortcut does the job?
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Unnecessary, waste of money. Per all.
 * 13) — "…What's more, we'll be the FIRST wiki to do this!". …You probably ignored that Wikipedia has an indipendent iOS app, too. And there's Wikipanion, still for iOS, that did the already done job: you can have more than one wiki in the same app, you can jump to a specific section without going up the page, and several more features… Per all.
 * 14) Like RandomYoshi said, the proposer himself stated that an app is unnecessary. Per all.

Comments
@MortonBoo99--You can view and edit the wiki from those devices. In fact, I'm writing this from my iPod.--

Even though I oppose the app, I think a mobile site might have some use (makes it easier to edit from mobile devices). I don't know though, you'll have to bring up anything like that with .--

I agree with Mariotime11

Spoiler Template
DO NOT ADD SPOILER TEMPLATES 1-15

I think we should use a template for articles that states that the page contains spoilers, a lot of other wikis have them. Like for example, what if someone was thinking of buying Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon and skimmed the article to read about it a little? The article has spoilers such as the game's ending right out in the open, so at least we should have a template we can put on SECTIONS that contain spoilers.

Proposer: Deadline: April 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm opposing for the reason that users shouldn't have to manage Spoiler templates and decide when they should be added or removed. And when people visit this site to read our articles, they don't want to see distracting notices littered around. Pages here are to be written and upheld in an encyclopedic view, and we shouldn't bend our standards and consistency just to suit certain individuals.
 * 2) Take pages such as Bowser, which scatters spoilers amongst non-spoilers like salt and pepper and blurs which is which (for example, in this day and age, is it really a spoiler that the final boss is Yoshi's Island is Giant Baby Bowser?). Take pages such as Doopliss or Shadow Queen, where the title or even mere existance of the page is a spoiler.
 * 3) - Definitely per YoshiKong. I was going to write a small text explaining the reasonings, but he said it the best.
 * 4) - Per all, and per the proposal that got rid of our original spoiler templates. There are spoilers everywhere, as is to be expected of a Mario encyclopedia; we have a disclaimer about it, but beyond that, it's the reader's responsibility to avoid spoilers, because marking them is way too much trouble and looks like crap.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) It's funny, I had the same thought a couple of days ago. But we shouldn't do that, because the wiki would be full of templates otherwise. If somebody doesn't want to read spoilers, he should not go to the page that will obviously contains spoilers (Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon as in your example)
 * 7) – Per all. As has been said time and time before, complete coverage of the Mario series implies that we will cover spoilers.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Walkazo and SMB
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.  Thought it was a regular template though.
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) - Per all.
 * 15) I'm pretty sure if people didn't want to give any part of the game away, they wouldn't read the article.

Comments
@MortonBoo99: I don't think you grasped the basic idea of the proposal. -- 20:12, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

Tell non-trolling IPS when their edits are undone
OPPOSE 1-15

I think that when we undo an edit from an anonymous IP that they should be notified, unless they are obviously a troll. This should happen because it means when they find out their edit has been undone they will have reasoning for why and so they'll know not to just add it back in. For example, today on the Yoshi's Island DS page, in the babies section, an IP address replaced the Yoshi Island DS Baby Mario and Baby Bowser sprite with their respective Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island sprites, this was undone and then a few minutes later they put it back and it had to undone again, if they told that their edit had been undone and were told why then it is likely that they would not have done it again. If the IP address is obviously just a troll then will not need to be notified about this, but for the honest people who just help out they do need to be notified.

Proposer: Deadline: April 15, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - I personally feel it's unnecessary to force everyone into following this procedure. If you want to, you can always let them now, but enforcing it with a proposal feels too much to me. Plus, if you provide a good edit summary when reverting edits, it's possible they'll see it and know why their edit was reverted.
 * 2) - Per Tucayo.
 * 3) Per Tucayo.
 * 4) - Per Tucayo.
 * 5) - Per Tucayo.
 * 6) If you want to do it, do it. I like the idea. But this shouldn't be a policy, that's taking it too far. Per Tucayo.
 * 7) It has good intentions, but I fear that it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. True, some I.P. addresses are unaware that a recent changes page exists (I didn't know about them prior to my joining the wiki), but I feel what you want to enforce is already practiced as courteous common sense, something we should already do anyway, and it shouldn't need enforcing.
 * 8) Per Tucayo.
 * 9) Per Tucayo.
 * 10) Per Tucayo.
 * 11) Per Tucayo.
 * 12) - Per Tucayo.
 * 13) • per all.
 * 14) I feel like this is unnecessary, so I agree with Tucayo and everyone else.
 * 15) Per Tucayo.

Comments
You could be more specific about what exactly will happen should this proposal pass. I mean, you are saying they should be notified, but how? If it is through normal messages on their talk pages, then I'm fairly sure this doesn't warrant a Proposal, but you could tell exactly what method should be used to notify them. ---
 * Talkpage is my only thought, how else can we tell them? I'd say it does warrant a proposal, because I can't just force everyone into doing this, unless the proposal passes
 * Even if this passes, you can't force people to tell the IP every time they make a mistake.--

You know, if someone doesn't bother to create an account in the first place, chances are their interest in the wiki is already fleeting enough that they won't even care that their edit was undone. There's no need to bother these people with what they will most likely think is spam. -

Notification for when watched pages are edited
DON'T NOTIFY 5-15

You know how there's a banner that is on every page of the wiki whenever your talk page is edited, right? Well, this is basically the same thing, just for when something else is edited; the pages that are on your watchlist. This way, we don't have to keep on checking Recent Changes or our watchlist several times a day. The banner should look something like this;




 * A page on your watchlist has been edited. Click here to see the change(s).

(the Mario article was used as an example)

The "here" part would take you to the comparison window between the most recently-made edit and the edit right before it.

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

Support

 * 1) Per proposal; this will make it much easier to keep track of watchlists.
 * 2) Per proposal and per Goomba.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) This allow us to keep track of our watched pages. If people have too many pages or find that distracting, I think there should be a option to disable it.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see this as being more convenient than just checking the watchlist.
 * 2) A lot of people find those templates that follow you around kind of annoying. Also, what if your watchlist is crammed with a lot of pages? I check my watchlist whenever I'm waiting for someone to reply on a talk page, or tracking changes to articles I often edit, etc.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - That would be incredibly annoying, per all.
 * 5) That would just be annoying as shit. Per all.
 * 6) - Let's say you have many watched pages. And magically they get instantly changed in a range of a minute. It would cram all the page as heck with lots of notices like this one.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) I don't think we really need this. You really shouldn't compare this to talk pages since they're two completely different things.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - It's unnecessary, annoying, unattractive and most importantly, impossible (see Comments).
 * 11) Per Walkazo.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) That seems a bit unnecessary to me. Per all.
 * 15) Rather unnecessary, kinda annoying (imagine users who watch 100's of pages), someone will have to make the code but they'ren't forced to, and finally just have a habit to check the watchlist.

Comments
What would be displayed if several pages which are on your watchlist have been changed since your last visit, rather than just one? Would it just show the most recent? -- 03:15, 15 April 2013 (EDT)
 * "A page" would turn into "Pages", and it would say "Click here to see the most recent changes on [name of article here], [name of article here], etc." 03:17, 15 April 2013 (EDT)


 * Okay so what if you had a whole list of articles which were edited since your last visit. What would the maximum amount of pages which would be displayed on the notice? Also, it might be best to ask Porplemontage about this idea. -- 03:23, 15 April 2013 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I'll notify him soon. As for the limit, I'd probably say about 10 or so. 03:24, 15 April 2013 (EDT)


 * Porple said that it's not feasible, so I think this should be withdrawn. -- 04:31, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

@NSY I think profanity is not allowed here. Or am I wrong?
 * It is allowed, but discouraged. From the Courtesy Policy: "The occasional use of profanity is allowed as long as it is not directed at another user, but it should generally be avoided.". --

I think it'll become a distraction.

Allow Featuring/Unfeaturing Article Nominations to pass by majority
DO NOT ALLOW FEATURING/UNFEATURING ARTICLE NOMINATION BY MAJORITY 3-14

I'm pretty sure there has been several near-successful featuring or unfeaturing article nominations over the years that are unanimous, but right at the last moment, someone opposes it, and because of just one user, the entire thing fails. I wanted to change that by adding a rule that featuring/unfeaturing articles nominations must pass by 50% of the votes plus one. (i.e. 5 to 2, 7 to 3, etc.) It will be a better system and also show that more articles are in really good quality or that more articles need a dusting.

Proposer: Deadline: April 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Goomba.
 * 3) Per Goomba.

Oppose

 * No, if we allow this then we are basically allowing fan votes to decide. I've seen archives of Mario for being featured and it was tonnes of supports because everyone likes him. If we allow this then it means some articles like Nintendo 3DS can be featured and at its current state we can't allow that due to a rewrite template and bad images. And also lots of people could support the unfeaturing of an article and then someone could come along and fix it up, but not be able to remove all the supports and a so a perfectly good article gets unfeatured.
 * 1) No articles should only be fa's when they are perfect and everybody agrees to that if an article has votes against it it means that the article is flawed and the flaws should be fixes (or that the votes are outdated in which case ask an admin) allowing articles to be fa'd when they have valid oppose votes on them will only lead to bad articles being featured because they are major characters.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) I would like to add to Marshal Dan Troop's vote (which I per with) that should an article's flaw is incorrect is fixed, we can always vote to remove it (and chances are, the oppose vote will get removed in time). So I think the current system is as fine as it is.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) &mdash; Per all, especially Marshal Dan Troop and Baby Luigi.
 * 6) Per Super Mario Bros.
 * 7) Per King Pikante.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per Marshal Dan Troop.

Comments
@Yoshi876 Fan votes are automatically removed now, so that isn't a problem anymore. 04:58, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
 * But reasons for supporting when featuring an article aren't allowed, so one person could say 'I think the Mario article is good because it has detail and images' and the all the fans would vote and it'd be impossible to see if they were fan votes because they can't leave a comment saying 'I love Mario'.
 * Yeah, I think that it's still a problem: there are still fan votes. 08:01, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
 * It's not much of a problem when one valid oppose vote just tips the side of the FA nomination.

Promotion/Demotion templates
DO NOT USE TEMPLATES 3-15

I think that we should have templates to alert a user that they have been promoted/demoted; it provides a quick reference on their talk page when they were changed. (Note that this is not changing the criteria for promotion in any way) The templates would look something like this:

Proposer: Deadline: April 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) You should be alerted when you get promoted,
 * 3) Per Electrical Bowser jr.

Oppose

 * 1) This is something that is absolutely unnecessary.
 * 2) this is completely pointless we have a user rights log for this.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Superflous and tacky-looking.
 * 6) A normal message on your talk page such as "Greeting (user). Due to the quality and frequency of your contributions, the Mariowiki staff has agreed to promote you to Autopatrolled status. Note that this does not carry any additional powers or responsibilities, and that it mostly serves to make patrolling edits easier on our end." is fine enough.
 * 7) It would be annoying and unnecessary, as per Marshal Dan Troop's comment.
 * 8) Per GreenDisaster and Marshal Dan Troop.
 * 9) Promotion/demotion notices take place on the forums nowadays. And if anyone wants to say a congrats on the user's talk page, they can do it without a tacky template.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per all, especially YoshiKong.
 * 14) - Per all. Our current way of doing things is fine.
 * 15) Per everyone, especially both YoshiKong and GreenDisaster.

Comments
Even though I supported, I know this will fail.


 * You are alerted when you are promoted in fact before you get promoted an admin asks you if you want the job then they send you a message like this one
 * By "tacky", do people mean how the draft templates look? And also, they have such templates on Userpedia here and here, and they seem to be working fine.


 * I don't like the second one's design especially. The animated GIF is not the best type of image we need for a template.
 * @LeftyGreenMario How about this? Luiginesog.png
 * It's better, but I doubt this proposal will pass (I also think the notification is not needed, but the outcome is obvious). Hypothetically, I'd choose that one.


 * I actually prefer the "we're cracking you over the head with a hammer and sending you packing like discarded rubble" image: it's far more amusing. -
 * I thought it was a random image that didn't really make sense because Jumpman was promoted by a "power-up." :P

I actually wouldn't be opposed to this sort of thing. Then again I am kind of a sucker for tackiness (in moderation). -

Delete Links to Passed Talk Page Proposals ONLY Until Action Has Been Taken
LEAVE THE LINKS UP 10-0

Normally, when a talk page proposal passes, we delete the link to the talk page proposal in this page. The problem is that this may leave settled talk page proposals not done because the settled proposal basically is out of sight for many users. I remember one talk page proposal settled a long time ago and no action has been taken until years later; it may have been forgotten. Just recently, few users have taken action in splitting enemies in the Subspace Army article, and I'm wondering if people don't realize it or if they are too busy doing something else.

My proposal is this: if a talk page proposal has passed, we should leave the link on the main proposal page until action has been taken according to the talk page proposal. And once the action has followed, then we can remove the link. That way, we know if action has been taken on that proposal or not.

This is necessary so we ensure appropriate action has been taken when a talk page proposal has settled.

This can also apply to more major proposals, but talk page proposals are the ones that need more awareness.

Of course, exceptions can apply.

Proposer: Deadline: May 2, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) We should keep links to the talk page proposal on this page until action has been taken. Then, we should remove them. That way, users know if the actions a talk page proposal requires have been taken.
 * 2) Per LGM.
 * 3) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 4) This is a good idea. I also think we should note when they have passed. For example, if a TPP has passed but has not been applied, we should note that it passed and that the edits have to be done.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Funny, I was just thinking about this the other day. Simply replacing the deadlines with "passed" until the change was made was how TPPs were originally done; I dunno why we stopped doing it that way, but bringing the practice back makes total sense. However, not archiving full proposals would make this page very cluttered, and given their larger scale, many aren't quick fixes to start with, so I think it'd be better to stick to archiving them straight away.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) &mdash; Per LeftyGreenMario, Banon, and Walkazo.
 * 10) - Per SMB.

Comments
Isn't this what we normally do, anyways? That was the way it was at least a few months ago.
 * I brought this up because the link to the proposal splitting the Subspace Emissary enemies was deleted, and nobody has really taken action to split the sections into articles, so it appears that we have already done that.

For the bigger proposals, perhaps we could have a page where the passed proposals are moved to an archive specifically for proposals that haven't been taken into action yet? After whatever the proposal wanted to do has been done, it can be moved to the standard proposal archive. It would bring attention to proposals that haven't been put into effect, and wouldn't cause much cluttering. It's just a thought.
 * That sounds like a good idea. Usually, though, bigger proposals get more attention, so more users can do something.
 * A while back, I made a proposal about splitting a bunch of Donkey Kong Country Returns enemies that had 20 support votes and 0 oppose votes. It took nearly two years for all the necessary articles to be created, and that was only after I made a thread over on the forum. Even if the majority of them get attention, there's always one that slips through the cracks.
 * That's why I said it was a good idea. I also said, "Usually". We probably do need to make a section for passed proposals that didn't see action yet.

Accurate titles for files
CHANGE TITLES 22-0

I have noticed files with, , and. Not only does this decrease professionalism and violate the image policy, but it also makes it more difficult to search for files (e.g. a search for filenames containing "toad" would leave out results if an undescriptive title was used). Even if these images are "only used once or twice", a descriptive title is still more useful.

I am proposing that we go back and rename files used in mainspace/gallery/etc. ('Shroom and userspace would be exempt from this, basically) articles that are breaking the policy, as well as enforcing a standard based and possibly expanding on what is written in the image policy I linked beforehand. I would not be opposed to going back and helping with the work, assuming this proposal passes.

Proposer: Deadline: May 5, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) - Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per proposal, because names should be more clear and appropriate.
 * 5) - I agree, specifically with the part about searching for files. Having fun is good and nice, but when functionality is compromised, that is when priorities must be set.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all. I used to like uploading retarded file names, but now, I don't.
 * 9) While I don't agree with the "professionalism" part (it can be both fun and presentable), we need standard and to-the-point file names instead of creative ones. I stopped making up my own file names a while ago. Also, per Walkazo's comment.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per proposal.
 * 13) Per proposal.
 * 14) &mdash; Per proposal, and Turboo and Kibago specifically.
 * 15) Per proposal.
 * 16) - Per SMB.
 * 17) - Per all.
 * 18) Per all. "Happy Fatty"? That's some serious BJAODN right there!
 * 19) Oh god, "Babypeachyushee'seyelandeees". I cringe at the thought of doing that. I'm  glad to god I decided to stop that while I had the chance. Per all.
 * 20) Per all. I think to move 530.jpg to Koopa Bros Bowser Castle.jpg.
 * 21) Per all.
 * 22) Heck yes. Per all.

Comments
At PidgiWiki, we have a standard which works well. What we do is put the subject of the image first, followed by a hyphen, and then the game/event is comes from.

For example: "Bowser Artwork - Super Mario Bros." If there is an alternative image, we use "Bowser Artwork (alt) - Super Mario Bros.", "Bowser Artwork (alt 2) - Super Mario Bros.", etc. This could be a good way to go.-- 05:17, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
 * I don't really like an idea of a naming standard, since that means we have to rename every single file in this wiki to match the standard. I think the best way to go is to at least make sure the image is descriptive, professional, and follows the image use policy. We don't need a single standard for this.
 * If this proposal passes, we're going to be renaming all of the files anyways. I wouldn't be opposed to a standard naming convention, as long as it isn't too convoluted.
 * I don't think we should rename all the images, just the ones that seem to be in violation of policy. While YK's suggestion could work as a guideline placed on the image policy page (even then, like Walkazo said, we should focus on keeping names straightforward), I don't think we need to enforce it, especially since a lot of filenames work even if they're simply the name of the character or the location. - Turboo (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

If we were the impose the standard, we should eliminate the "having fun part" since there is a degree where you may have fun uploading images, and it all depends on the user's personal idea what "fun" is. I know I might sound a wee bit sarcastic here since I did this crap in the past, but if we were to have more functional image files, we need to be as serious as writing articles on this.
 * Removing the "fun" clause has actually come up in admin discussions before, but we never went back and actually got rid of it, but yeah, I'd agree that it'd be better without such a subjective point. As for the overall standard, I think making a rigid formula we have to follow or else would be a bad idea: as long as we can tell what the images are of, if there's some variety, it's not the end of the world. We could add more specific requests to the current "meaningful name" parameter, such as having the name of the game (or an abbreviation), what kind of image it is (profile art, screenshot, boxart, whatever), and what the image is of (name of the character in the profile, name of the level a screenshot it of and maybe some info about the shot, etc.). However, there should also be emphasis on making the names straightforward: I'd argue that "Bowser art SMB" and "Bowser art 2 SMB" would be preferable to the ones YoshiKong suggested, since they're shorter and don't mess around with punctuation (brackets, dashes) and extra words ("alt"). Similarly, even if a screenshot contains Bowser, Mario and a Podoboo, something like "SMB screenshot end of 1-4" would be easier to use than "SMB screenshot 1-4 Bowser, Mario and a Podoboo"; or if a screenshot is of Mario and a Whacka, "PM screenshot Whacka" would be fine, since the Whacka's the important part. But again, most image names are fine even if they don't follow this sort of "what/kind/game" standard, and renaming them would be excessive and annoying, so even requesting those three things should be more of a guideline than a hard rule. -

At the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, they also don't use names like File:HappyFatty 9.png. At that wiki, they use descriptive names for photos like
 * We don't follow wikias. Nevertheless, I think putting the description IN the file name is a bit unwieldly. I prefer the description to be reserved for the aboutfile.
 * Yeah. Otherwise, the filename is too much of a mouthful. :P.

Add to Help:Link
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER, DISCUSSED ON FORUM

I think we should include Plainlinks here. I mean, there's every other kind of link, so why not include that?

Proposer: Deadline: May 13, 2013, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Comments
I don't think this warrants a proposal (here, at least).
 * Yeah, you should post it here instead
 * @Baby Luigi Isn't that thread only for small edits that the admins can just go and make? For this I'd have to make a draft.

Merge Mario-related controversies into a single page.
CREATE NEW ARTICLE 18-0

After extensively searching both the Wiki and the Forums, I've concluded that the Wiki does not include a page that lists controversies that involve the Mario series, nor has any proposal been made towards creating one. Being Nintendo's flagship franchise, it is apparent that the series has dealt with controversy, with examples such as the Mario Party 8, Tanooki Suit and Ashley's Song controversies coming to mind. Should these issues be detailed in their own article akin to the one on Bulbapedia, or should they continue to be listed in separate articles as sections? The new article would also allow for expansion on these topics, and the inclusion of additional controversies related to Mario that are unmentioned on the Wiki (such as PETA's recent KFC campaign).

Proposer: Deadline: May 9, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Personally, I believe that there aren't enough controversies to compose a really long article. However, I also believe that this article could include smaller examples such as the satanic references in Super Mario Bros. 3, Birdo's gender, and lawsuits against Nintendo that pertain to its systems, thus giving it more depth and making it a significant contribution to the Wiki. Plus, the Wiki lists the inclusions of Mario in both positive (main appearances) and neutral (cameos and the like) perspectives, but why doesn't it list the inclusions of Mario in a publicly negative perspective? I created this proposal because the idea has never been raised before, which is really surprising to me. Anyway, I support the merge of these controversies to form a new article.
 * 2) Seems like a good idea, the page could be laid out like the List of Mario references in various forms of media.
 * 3) - I feel this sort of content can be really attractive for readers, and having them all together in one place would be convenient. However, as a fellow staff member had mentioned in earlier discussions, we have to be really cautious not to be biased. A page like this requires to be absolutely objective, stating only the facts and not going into speculation; it's up to each reader to draw his conclusions on subjects like this.
 * 4) Per Tucayo.
 * 5) Per Tucayo.
 * 6) - A "List of controversies in the Mario series" page is a good idea, for all the reasons proposed (although "merge" is a bit of a misnomer, as the info shouldn't be moved from the individual articles, just copied). Also, to elaborate on the point Tucayo alluded to, this sort of article will need to have references for every single point (direct quotations from the games works), to ensure that we're keeping our facts straight, our writing unbiased, and our credibility high.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) &mdash; Per GBAToad, Tucayo, and Walkazo. I especially agree with the notions that this isn't a proper "merge" and that the content should be completely based on references to avoid bias and misleading "facts."
 * 9) - Per SMB.
 * 10) - Per Walkazo's support reasons.
 * 11) Per all. I don't see why not.
 * 12) Per SMB.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Things like MARIO KILLS TANOOKI or Birdo's supposed "double gender" deserve their article, easy to find.
 * 15) Per GBAToad and Tucayo.
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per all!
 * 18) Great idea. Per all.

Comments
" I also believe that this article could include smaller examples such as the satanic references in Super Mario Bros. 3"

is that a joke.--Glowsquid (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
 * My fault on that one. I could swear I read it in the article once, but after researching it recently I found it was just a joke made in an AVGN video. I feel silly. GBAToad (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Filter
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER

I think we should have swear filters that censor profanity in userspace, like the forum does. Even though the Courtesy Policy states that

"The occasional use of profanity is allowed as long as it is not directed at another user, but it should generally be avoided. You are free to use profanity in moderation in your own userspace, but if it is decided that you have overstepped the boundaries of good taste, you may be asked to tone it down.",

there are users who do not want to see it while letting other users do what they want, such as me. therefore, I think the wiki should have a swear filter, which can be enabled/disabled and censors profanity on user pages and talk pages.

Proposer: Deadline: May 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think this is possible without affecting other articles in the wiki, and if it did occur, it would overturn the talk page proposal that settled swearing on mainspace articles. And if you have a problem with it, it's not necessary to visit the user's pages.
 * 2) Nevermind that automatic censors are both very easily bypassed and invariably prone to hilarious false positives, I have nothing but utter contempt for censorship and everything it stands for. Also, what BLOF said.
 * 3) As much as I dislike swearing, I find the censor feature pretty unnecessary. I doubt a lot of visitors visit other user's talk pages, and again, this may carry to mainspace articles (which have minimal swearing anyway). Plus, we have to figure out what word is considered too vulgar, especially on those that are otherwise innocuous, but have sexual contexts in slang. If you don't want swearing on your talk page, then state it, but you can't do much on other user pages.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) All the censor systems that I've seen do not work at all; they often censor part of a word that coincidentally has, for one of its syllables, something that's also a swear word, and other times, they let slip by genuine swears that happen to be misspelled. Bottom line is that a censor system would interfere with the actual articles and potentially do nothing much in terms of the user talkpages.
 * 8) Per Glowsquid.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Time Turner.
 * 11) - Per LeftyGreenMario and Time Turner.
 * 12) Per all.

Make a list page for ripoff/bootlegs that have been acknowledged by Nintendo.
MAKE THE LIST 19-0

There's been various proposals about covering knockoff. They've failed in part because of the community's kneejerk reaction to anything "unofficial" and also because while listing every random Hong Kong bootleg is entertaining, it's neither all that informative or useful.

Maybe so, but what about the times where Nintendo has legally pursued the producer of such products? Legally dubious knockoffs are part of the life of any big media franchise, and covering them is as essential to establishing Mario's global popularity and influence as random pop culture references are. And if Nintendo has acknowledged these things exist (however how quietly), why shouldn't we?

Of course, the page would require some proof that the things listed were c&d or otherwise acknowledged by Nintendo to prevent the page from being flooded by random Chinese bootlegs. Example of stuff that would be elligible for inclusion on such a page:


 * Great Giana Sisters (devs were pressured by Nintendo to pull out the game from shelves)
 * Mole Kart (videos of it get copyright claim from NOA)
 * Era's Adventure 3D (idem+ the game was briefly pulled from Google Play)
 * Super Hornio Brothers (:lol:)

Proposer: Deadline: May 12, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Create page

 * 1) - What I wrote above.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) per all.
 * 6) Per Glowsquid.
 * 7) - Per proposal.
 * 8) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 9) &mdash; Per Glowsquid.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per proposal.
 * 12) - Per proposal.
 * 13) Per proposal.
 * 14) Per proposal.
 * 15) Per proposal; a case like this would make sense in terms of the details that are described in this proposal.
 * 16) Per proposal.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) - Per all.
 * 19) I thought about that the other day... Since Nintendo apparently bought the rights of Super Hornio Brothers (to prevent it from being sold)... doesn't that make it kinda official ?

Comments
Do we have to cover Super Hornio Brothers?
 * I think it's at least worth a mention as long as we avoid coverage of actual pornographic content, which I don't think even the Wikipedia article discusses.
 * It's legally owned by Nintendo. It's not like the page would describe the content in more details than "It's a porno parody", anyway. --Glowsquid (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

How do we know if a bootleg or knockoff is acknowledged by Nintendo?
 * Press/independant reports and other signs. For example, if you click a youtube link and get a message among the lines of "This video was removed due to a copyright claim by Nintendo of America", there's a tacit acknowledgement by NOA that the thing exists. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Warning for editing large pages for mobile users
NO SPECIAL WARNING 2-15

So, I was roaming around SmashWiki, and I was about to edit a page, when I saw this at the top of the editing window;

http://i.imgur.com/dZ6EqwS.png

I was thinking, "That's a great idea for the MarioWiki to use as well!" Because, lately, I've seen some revisions of pages where, by accident, users deleted massive amount of content from pages when only they are adding something in good faith, because their mobile browsers can't handle all of that text. What I am proposing is making a MediaWiki page having a template that is similar, but not exactly like the image, that automatically adds itself to large pages; pages that are 32 KB or more, as seen in the image. If SmashWiki could do it, so could we.

Proposer: Deadline: May 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per Goomba. Also it could be useful for 3DS browsers.

Oppose

 * 1) – Even though the issues described within the template could occur, I don't think this it's necessary to have a distracting notice which users are forced to look at as a precaution. Any mistakes can easily reverted, and it's just as easy to let users know when something does happen.
 * 2) Per Yoshikong.
 * 3) Per YoshiKong. Users should be competent enough to know not to edit large pages on mobile browsers. If the problem is major, maybe it needs a note in the policies, but certainly not its own template.
 * 4) Per YoshiKong.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - per all.
 * 7) Per YoshiKong.
 * 8) Per YoshiKong.
 * 9) Per YoshiKong.
 * 10) - Per YoshiKong.
 * 11) Per all. Besides, the template here actually overlaps the actual screen on my phone, so unless you change it, it's not going to work out.
 * 12) - Per YoshiKong and GBAToad.
 * 13) Per GBAToad.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all.

Comments
There is not way we are allow to have that template on. That could disrupt users on a mobile phone. Beside, Tucayo is editing on a mobile phone, and if you did that, he would be disrupted by that message.

Although I oppose the template, maybe we could do this, so it shows up only when editing the page and we don't have to see notices littered around:

""

Or should I split this to a separate proposal?

User shops
BAN USER SHOPS 26-11

Many years ago, users started spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on comics and stories based on their fellow users, so much so that Userpedia was created and it was decreed that all fiction must get off this main wiki and onto that database. (Or something like that.) Now, users have been spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on fictional "shops" that they run out of their userspace (messing about with stock, hiring other users, advertising, giving stuff away, etc. etc.). However, the Super Mario Wiki is NOT a social website, and these shops do NOT help us document all things Mario - rather, they distract folks from editing, clutter up the recent changes, and eat up our server space. Just as works of fiction were removed all those years ago, and just as user subpages "that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki" are not allowed, I am proposing that we bring the user shop phenomenon to an end. In other words, a bullet along the lines of "fake businesses (stores/shops, etc.)" would be added to the "What should I avoid? section of MW:Userspace. There are plenty of outlets for socializing: setting up shops on the wiki instead of editing is not one of them.

Proposer: Deadline: May 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per my proposal. Hate to be a killjoy, but this trend has gotta stop.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I never really liked the idea of imaginary commerce. I've never engaged in a shop myself, but I do think messages such as "Your Chance Orb has arrived! Transaction of 20 coins has been made." feel distracting and (I daresay) pointless. It might be fun, I guess. Having fun uplifts morale and it should be encouraged, but there is a line we should draw between having fun and being productive. Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) User shops probably violate the userspace policy anyway (though not explicitly), so even if we made a new guideline that might overlap, it wouldn't hurt to make a point devoted to the shop. Per all.
 * 7) Shops and user-related stuff needs to be ON USERPEDIA. This is an encyclopedia about Mario, not a userspace-based wiki. Plus, there would be much more productive edits, without the shops. Comments like I want to buy a Yoshi, or Can I work in your shop? are UNPRODUCTIVE and very distracting and hide the primary purpose of this wiki:an encyclopedia about our favorite plumber. This is needed. And what's worse, shops are getting more and more common and more unproductive edits are being made. I've never liked the shop idea, and it's just distracting and a waste of time.
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) - Per Walkazo.
 * 10) - Per Walkazo; I never liked this kind of idea in the first place. This needs to cease.
 * 11) - Mariowiki isn't a social network, and that includes not being a venue for off-topic inanity. I hardly see how removing them is "removing fun", anyway, as the wiki is far more (too) lax than every other large wikis in existence when it comesto userspace and socializing, anyway.
 * 12) The' unnecessary subpages' rule is there for a reason. Shops only get away because they're on the main userpage. And we're not 'outlawing fun', we have the forums and userpedia for messing around. Per proposal.
 * 13) The shops shall go bankrupt, per all!
 * 14) Unnecessary.  They belong on Userpedia.
 * 15) - Per all. I definitely agree that they distract users from editing the wiki.
 * 16) - Per proposal.
 * 17) - When I first saw shops on the wiki I was like, "Are you serious"? And I don't mean to pick on anyone, but the majority of users I've seen who operate shops have more edits to userspace. If you want to do this, the wiki is not a suitable place for it, start a thread on the forums or do it on Userpedia. Per all.
 * 18) Although I kind of agree with Time Turner, I also have to say that we are NOT outlawing fun because fun just moved to Userpedia. Per proposal.
 * 19) Shops always seemed pointless to me, and I do see many users just editing talkpages asking for this, that and the other; so per proposal.
 * 20) Per all.
 * 21) I'm gonna have to agree with this. First of all per Walkazo's reason and second, there is no real gain out of this, you're just getting pictures for your user page/talk page that you could just put there yourself.
 * 22) HECK, this decision should have been bringed up a lot of time ago. These shops are just tables with "cute" pics and "prices", and many users fill up someone's talk page for something like "There Is A New Thing At The Shop Go Buy It!!" or "Please Buy This And I Mark You As Best Friend!!". Like Glowsquid said, MarioWiki isn't like Facebook or any other type of social network and removing these shops isn't "removing fun"; plus making shops, adding new "items" and even adding a list of who "bought", causes an abnormal increase of unnecessary userspace edits and is counterproductive to the site. When I first saw these "shops" I thought it was something fun, but then I realized all those stuff in shops were just pointless. And unnecessary. To close this, per all.
 * 23) Per all.
 * 24) Per all.
 * 25) Does the Encyclopædia Britannica have crosswords and funny pictures at the end?
 * 26) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) The wiki is doing just fine in this state. Besides, without any shops, this wiki could stop having as many users as it does now.
 * 2) I don't want to engage in a slippery slope argument, but it really does feel like we're outlawing fun. The shops may be pointless, but at the same time, they're harmless. They do nothing to undermine the quality of the mainspace articles, and are used as nothing more than a fun side-activity for most users. They don't distract users from editing and polishing the articles, they're simply something that they do for their own entertainment. I just don't see the point in disallowing them.
 * 3) Per Time Turner, plus, I have one of those shops, and it doesn't make up most of my edits, and no one's complained about the messages.
 * 4) Per Time Turner. Let them have their fun. Now if, say people start putting ads on mainspace articles, then I'd say otherwise.
 * 5) Goomba only updates his shop at times, and thus the wiki won't become a social network. Per all.
 * 6) Per Electrical Bowser Jr.
 * 7) The shops are harmless. I am sure that any shop owner does not spend the entire time on it. I edit mainspace articles, upload files, click on "Random Page" to see if an easy to find mistake is on that; so I think that they are not distracting. You cannot just abolish anything fun that is the moment's trend, people are only trying having fun.
 * 8) Per Iggy Koopa Jr.
 * 9) per electrical bowser jr it's all fine.
 * 10) Per all! It's not on mainspace it's not doing anyone any harm, it's just a little bit of fun!
 * 11) Shops aren't bad for the wiki, they might be silly, but they're not on mainspace, and as long as they don't take too much time, they're good fun!

Comments
Wouldn't this "user shop" business violate some pats of the Userspace policy anyway?

If you remove my oppose, can't we just have one big, official shop?
 * No matter how much we disagree with your oppose vote, it's still valid so no, it won't get removed. And having an official shop is highly unlikely as it serves the exact purpose and it gives the same reasons that Walkazo is trying to remove. You can always set up a fictional shop where appropriate; here is not the right place.
 * To answer your question, Baby Luigi, it probably does, but rather than try and classify it as something already in the list of things to avoid, we thought it would be easier for it to have its own point given how widespread it is (feel free to correct me if that's inaccurate, Walkazo).

Goomba: it's not necessarily your shops that make you unproductive (in which you are productive in mainspace). I think it's the other users being engaged in the shops.
 * If that's the case... why not directly confront the people that you feel are being unproductive? The shops aren't the problem here, it's the people running the shops.
 * Agreed with Time Turner, just let the users know that their shop is distracting other users, and they should take it down.

@KP: Removing the shops isn't automatically going to convert every edit that could have been used on a user shop message into a mainspace edit, though... people being distracted is one thing, edits magically becoming productive is another. -
 * Yeah, but I mean by that that there will be fewer userspace based edits. Sorry if that wasnt unclear to you.

I apologize if this sounds somewhat biased, but I believe if every single shop on the wiki was removed, several users may get disappointed or angered, and they may wish to overturn this proposal if it passes. I know, we aren't a social network, but at least allow users to have some fun.
 * Maybe some will get angered at first, like some policy changes that happened to me several times in the past (Featured Images ;, but eventually, they'll get used to it being gone. And any attempt to overturn it will probably be futile without a decent reason to put it back. If you want to have fun on a scale like this, another site can do (you can even PM each other on the forums, or maybe start a topic there or something).
 * The other site would have to get some publicity, and even if it's popular like Facebook, people will have to know your account name, and then you may not want to share too much personal info. And I don't see how the forums are going to work out very well, IMO.
 * Which is why we have Userpedia for this. Userpedia is made for all user-related stuff. You can have as much fun as you want there, provided you follow their rules of course. And I can imagine it working it out in the forums. Typing a PM is not that much different than leaving a message on the user page. And you can make the shop a forum game or something. Be creative. PS Facebook is terrible. 20:32, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
 * Actually, not very many people I know have even heard of Userpedia; I myself just found out about it a month ago.
 * Is it possible to actually put an image from Mario Wiki onto Userpedia? If so, then I will support.
 * No, it's not, you'll have to upload it.
 * You can if you hotlink it, I guess, but I'm pretty sure just uploading is preferred. -

Might as well blank my userpage soon as there isn't much use for it when this passes.

Thus, if we had no shops, the wiki would lose popularity. and thus moving them to the forum only gets ideas.
 * The wiki shouldn't be popular for userspace distractions in the first place: losing users who don't care for editing the mainspace is no loss at all. Now to respond to earlier questions, @Baby Luigi: The "keep non-encyclopedic material to a minimum" vibes that permeate Userspace dissuade this sort of userspace-focused project but as long as there's no subpages involved, it's not against any hard rule; I suppose you could say that shops are already technically disallowed via the "no fiction" point, but that was intended to stop stories, not elaborate role playing, and it'd be a bit of a cheap shot to suddenly say it has all these other meanings too. Which brings me to my next point, @Time Turner: since there is no official legislature against shops, it' be better to change that before we start confronting users about them. Besides, if we want to get rid of them and stop them from coming back, a rule is more effective than doing it case-by-case. We're also hoping most users will see the new rule (either here, or via the planned SiteNotice should this Proposal pass) and get rid of the shops without us having to directly tell them to: the less confrontational this change can be, the better. -
 * Still, I just don't see the harm in keeping the shops. What's wrong with letting people have their fun? It's not undermining anything nor distracting anyone, is it?
 * I'm pretty sure the entire point of this proposal is that they are distracting people - people are spending all their time on the shops instead of doing other things, is the issue.

@Paragoomba: This proposal is directed towards every shop and not just Goomba's, so I don't really get what you're trying to say...? -

@Pinkie Pie: Really? You should vote based on your personal beliefs, not whether you'll disappoint admins or not. After all, this proposal carries the same weight as a proposal made by any other user. It's not anything special; if it was, the policy would be changed without us voting on it.
 * Exactly. The proposal was made because we wanted the users to have their voice in the matter, and either way, being a sycophant is not going to earn you any brownie points with anyone, admin or otherwise. @Time Turner: User pages were never meant to be the staging area for fake shops, and that abuse of user rights is what's wrong: shops are a distraction to editing and that does undermine the wiki's primary function as a community-driven Mario encyclopedia. That's the harm, that's why they gotta go. -

I've noticed that most users having the "Your edits are mainly userspaces" template added on their talk do not own any shops. They are just not contributing enough to the Wiki. Removing the shops will not make the edits magically be contributive. Also, people are not a infinite well of information, as we own limited a limited amount of games. And if you think people are being unproductive because of this, go tell them. Put that template I so often see on Talkpages of users who don't even own a shop, or never purchased anything. And mabye, even if you did abolish shops, what tells you that people are going to be magically active on needed pages?
 * Nothing says that they are magically going to be active in mainspace, but as someone above me somewhere has said losing these users isn't going to be a big deal.

@EBJr.: What does the amount of users on the wiki have to do with anything? We aren't judging our success based on a number of people. -
 * Also if someone is going to quit over something as silly as User shops do we ever really want them here?

Banon: You're not making a good analogy here. See, this wiki is about a relatively silly subject. Encyclopaedia Britannica covers more broadly and formally, so of course it should be formal. The outcome of this proposal is clear, but I just want to point that out.

Allow Cursing
DO NOT ALLOW CURSING 1-14

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.
 * 13) Per all, especially paragoomba and lefty

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

HEY. I said autocensor.

Do not allow un-autoconfirmed users to create their own user talk pages
NO CHANGES 1-11

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.
 * 11) Per YoshiKong.

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. -

Give users the option to not leave redirects when moving pages
NO CHANGES 1-7

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)
NO CHANGES 1-10

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
DON'T ADD 2-16

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.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) - Per all.
 * 16) - Per GBAToad, this is useless because noobs will only make effortless contributions just to become a patroller.

Comments
I never said you would get more user rights... I say it makes it easier for admins to go look at people to find good patrollers -_-. I am starting to take this as an insult of my grammar, JK, but still i didnt say you could get user rights by leveling up in the proposal. Robecuba (talk)

Remakes
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER

I think something needs to be done about the way we treat remake games. We have articles for games such as Super Mario 64 DS and Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, but the whole Super Mario Advance series are all merged with their original games. While those remakes aren't nearly as different as their original games, they still have their differences and should still be treated as other remakes are in the wiki. I propose that we either split all remakes from their original games and give them their own articles or merge all remakes into their original games.

Proposer: Deadline: June 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Split all remakes into individual articles

 * 1) I say split

Comments
Sorry, it's already an official policy. It just hasn't been enforced everywhere yet. -- 09:53, 25 May 2013 (EDT)


 * So remakes already get their own pages?

Yes, they should. But not all of them have as of yet, as there's quite a bit of work involved. Splitting the article does not just mean to create a separate page. There are individual categories that need to be created, character/enemy history entries to add, templates and (many) links to update. And the article can't just be a cut-paste of the "#Remakes" section of the original article. -- 10:02, 25 May 2013 (EDT)


 * Alright, then I guess I should withdrawal this proposal since there's already the policy.

Note that SMA games are more ports than remakes. A general term would be "reissues" (but that doesn't really matter). 13:55, 25 May 2013 (EDT)


 * Yeah, withdrawing would be best: it's early enough that you can remove/archive it yourself. -