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) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 12) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.

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)

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Splits & Merges
None at the moment.

Disallow Animations as Main Pictures in Articles
OK, so me and good 'ol had a little talk here on animations in articles. This discussion can be found here. Now, the article in question had an animation as the main image of the article. This proposal is to remove all animations in all articles. Reasoning:


 * They are annoying.
 * They are usually poorly done.
 * They make it hard to concentrate on the article itself and its nonmoving images.

Now, the exception to this proposed rule is when the animation is actually showing something other than how the thing looks in-game. For example, on Blooper, there is animation that shows how a Blooper moves. This is useful because describing the erratic, zigzag movement of a Blooper is quite difficult in words. Usually, "useful" animations can be found low on the page in large articles.

So now I turn it over to you: to eradicate, or not to eradicate?

Proposer: Deadline: 20:00, January 30, 2009

Disallow Animations

 * 1) - Per my reasons above.

Comments
Please hold while I make a semi-complete listing of useful animations. It will contain very few articles. Feel free to point me out some useful ones. -


 * Cape has a good animation, although it needs to be explained more. --


 * Indeed. I shall add it to my list, which can be found here.

What about Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro.'s image? Also, while this isn't so bad (it does a good job at showing the difference in how they look and move), the first gif on the Paragoomba article is unnecessary. -

I think the problem with some of these images is that they aren't "natural" to the game. Like, they are way too quick. Any animated image that actually matches the motion of the game should be fine. (Or slower, to show movement details.) --

Maybe voting to allow/disallow animations is too extreme. There'll be too many exceptions to the rule. It would be better if we just voted to agree or disagree that there should be less animations, and that making more should be discouraged unless there's a really good reason for it. Then we can delete the existing bad images on a case-by-case basis (which is basically what we're doing now to find the exceptions). -

It is possible to remove those funny animated sprites, like characters when idle (i.e: The Paragoomba image) these images are really monotonous and don't say almost anything...


 * Idle sprites show exactly what something looks like in a game, which can be just as useful as artwork. However, most of the animated ones don't need the animation to show what needs to be shown: it's gratuitous and that makes the article look bad. -


 * I think they should be looked at by a committee. Like Bloc Partier said above, some (Paragoomba!) are bad, there are exceptions.  Anyone agree with me?
 * It's sorta already done like that: someone finds a bad image, and comments on its talk page that it might be a good idea to delete it. People respond, and eventually a decision's reached. In theory, at least - sometimes queries made on talk pages aren't picked-up by other Users for quite a while... -
 * It's sorta already done like that: someone finds a bad image, and comments on its talk page that it might be a good idea to delete it. People respond, and eventually a decision's reached. In theory, at least - sometimes queries made on talk pages aren't picked-up by other Users for quite a while... -

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.