MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg 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. This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

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) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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 (EDT)

New Features
''None at the moment.

Remove Quote of the Day from the main page
Quote of the Day uses a processor heavy combination of the &lt;choose&gt; and &lt;DPL&gt; tags that increases loading time significantly. In my tests, it took an average of 7 seconds longer to load the page with QOTD than without, but compare for yourself here and here. Other than those seven seconds, I don't see that it adds much to the page. It could be moved to a dedicated page, if people still want to use it.

Proposer: Deadline: August 7, 2009, 20:00

Support

 * Whoah, looks like you're right. Much faster for me, too, without the quote. Plus, I agree with you that the quote is not exactly necessary. So yeah, get rid of it.
 * 1) True,very true.
 * 2) - Per 2257
 * 1) - Per 2257

Comments
BTW, I just tried loading both versions of the main page a few times. The one without the quote always took only 4 seconds. With the quote, there were durations ranging from 25 seconds to 1 minute and 35 seconds! That's a massive difference. Please keep that in mind when voting.
 * Both pages took ages to load for me, but the MarioWiki mainpage was a little bit faster (probably by the time it took me to click on the second link). Considering the wiki's infinite slowness, it doesn't make much of an impact. - 16:10, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Split Missions From Galaxy Articles
I think that we should split all of the Super Mario Galaxy missions from their respective galaxy levels. I have started a PipeProject that could help improve the stub articles that would be created, such as adding more in-depth explanations and descriptions about the mission, which planets are traveled to during the mission, creating more specific templates and adding them to the articles, adding/uploading images specific to that level, etc. We could make good articles out of these, but I need community permission before I start splitting a ton of information from the articles. An example of one of these proposed level pages can be found over here. Proposer: Deadline: Tuesday, 28 July 2009, 17:00 Extended: Tuesday, 4 August 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Nice example, I'm just worried that they won't all be like that! I think it would be only fair as we have articles on: Yoshi's Island 1, Yoshi's Island 2 and even Yoshi's House!
 * 2) Whoops, forgot to vote. Uh, as you can see, I am the proposer, so my reasons are above.
 * 3) I am Zero! Great idea, this can avoid stubs in some articles. Zero signing out.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think this is necessary. The Galaxy articles are neat and easy to navigate. This would just make the Galaxy articles much smaller and closer to stubs themselves, as well as creating a lot more stubs. Not all missions would translate as well as the one you showed. What about Comet missions? They would either be extremely short or copies of other mission articles. As for your ideas to improve stubs, why not just do this to improve the sections that already exist? This proposal just seems like it would create a lot of work, with little or no gain for the wiki.
 * 2) - While I hate the repetitive nature of the galaxy articles, most of these missions will be stubs, just like most of the individual level articles floating around for the 2-D platformers. I'd rather see all the levels merged into world articles, like the Super Mario Bros. 3 coverage. I'm sure the planet parts of the galaxy articles can be cut down to make the pages less elongated and more like the Super Mario 64 articles - compact and neat, as opposed to fragmented like the separated missions will most-likely turn out.
 * 3) Per Walkazo
 * 4) - Per Walkazo, if we would split the SMG missions, then we would have to split the SM64 and SMS missions as well.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per all.

Comments
Can I please see a rough draft of one of the pages before I vote?
 * I will work on one, I will probably have it done by tomorrow or the day after and it will be linked to the proposal. 01:17, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Just remember: You cannot change your proposal three days after you propose it or later! - Remember to offer feedback about User:Marioguy1/Mariowiki:Ask the Experts! I think I'll make a proposal about it!
 * Ok.
 * Howabouts we split them as needed, split some and not others. SMB, if you can hold this proposal in a tie until I get back I might be able to whip up a starting version (or you could give it a go) of all the other articles to prove that they are not going to be stubs.

FAQ transformation
OK, let's see, my second proposal, totally random section and the vote count is already 3-1. Anyways here is the proposal: I think the FAQ page is basically a large thing where users can read questions that they all ready know the answers to. On the FAQ talk page we have asking questions. I ask, why don't we put proposals on the Proposal talk page or FI noms on the FI talk page, why do we put it on the main page? I'll answer myself, because it's easier. Since it's easier, I propose we change the old FAQ into my new version (see here) so that users can actually ask their questions on the real Mariowikispace page!

Proposer: (but I give  permission to man it while I'm away) Deadline: July 31, 2009, 20:00

Remake FAQ

 * 1) - Yes, I moved it here to eliminate the problem
 * 2) I am Zero! It will be a good idea with the correct set rules. And plus this will keep me busy from the poll selection page being discontinued for a little while, since the remake FAQ is sort of like the poll selection page, without an "oppose" section. You know how you have that "answer" area, well probably you can also put in a "Tip" or "Pointers" area just for users to give there extra info of what they usually do as a habit. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) I very much like the example you showed. It is a much easier way to ask and answer questions than the previous FAQ.
 * 5) it's a good page for teaching new editors how to do stuff. p.s thanks for including me in the example :P
 * 6) Love the idea of an easier FAQ.I Think it would make everything a little less complicated.

Don't Remake FAQ

 * 1) -– I believe the FAQ is fine the way it is. Having a whole lot of answers to a question may be overwhelming to a new user.
 * It's called "Frequently Asked Questions", and as such it should be a collection of, well, frequently asked questions (plus the answers). Turning it into a "Ask your questions" system defeats the purpose: Users wouldn't check first if there's already an answer to their question, they would ask it right away. Too much work for everyone.
 * 1) - Per all. We vote on the main Proposal and FA pages because that's the point of those pages, whereas the FAQ page is, as Time Q said, an FAQ page, not a public Q&A - that's the talk page's job (just like the Proposal talk page is a Q&A about general Proposal stuff).
 * 2) Per all, and I find it pointless to have that new template as it is just like the talk page. There is no rule saying that there can't be multiple answers adding onto previous answers, so the multiple answers table will not encourage users to put multiple answers. In addition, there is usually only one answer per question, so the template will just take up space.
 * 3) Per Walkazo
 * 4) - Per Walkazo.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo.

Comments
I'm not sure I completely understand your proposal. If it passed, what would happen to the FAQ page we currently have? Where would we put the questions already answered on the page?
 * In the archives! That's how the archives would stop being a red link, then users could actually ask questions and other users could still get that glowing feeling of accomplishment by answering them. Now there is only one page to ask questions. Wait, do you think answered questions should go into the archive or just stay there?
 * Zero: Tell you what, I'll open a little thing on User talk:Marioguy1/Mariowiki:FAQ for any user to tell me how they think it should look; I'll have the agreed-on version on the User page.
 * Yoshario: I kind of agree with your logic but these are people we're talking about. I may not know much about people but I think one of their qualities is that they are not overwhelmed by more than one answer. If it were a cat or a dog I would understand but people are the most intelligent species on the planet (most of them anyways) and will not be overwhelmed by five or six answers.
 * If we use this system, we may also have a lot of repeat questions, whereas if we use a FAQ page, they would read the FAQ first. @Zero777 When we removed the poll one of our goals was to get users editing in the mainspace, and I don't think creating a whole new FAQ system would work. @Marioguy1 They still might get overwhelmed by repeating tips and answers. --
 * Yoshario: This is SMB, Marioguy 1 told me to handle all proposals-related stuff for him, including replying to questions. What I have to say on the matter is that perhaps we should make a rule not allowing repeat answers.

Wow that's a high level of opposition! Anyhow, @Yoshario: The repeat tips and answers will be added in gradually so that users will not be overwhelmed, while I agree with SMB's logic, you could see the talk page of my example for another version of what the FAQ could look like that would eliminate your problems. @Time Q: Well then those user's questions would be referenced to the previous question or they could be asked again. What's the problem with that? @Walkazo: Thanks for a name! It could be called a Questions and Answers page instead of a Frequently Asked Questions page! Anyhow, why can't it be a Q&A page? The FAQ page is so empty that a Q&A should be used just to fill it up with information because information is a good thing in a wiki. @Luigifreak: Remind me again what template you are talking about? I think you think my example is a template! Anyways, multiple answers is not a problem. Neither is space.

Marioguy: The template is the new FAQ you our proposing. I am saying, that generally, only ONE answer is put, so the table is unnecisary, as it's only purpose is for multiple votes, which it will not have. As for space, it's not a big deal, but the subheadings are unnecisary, as 1. The second section will never be used 2. there will be only one answer for the first section so why have them at all? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'ts just, If it a'int broke, don't fix it.

Marioguy: The FAQ page isn't "empty", it's concise, which is a good thing. Most people don't have the patience to read pages and pages of policies and rules, so having a comparatively short and straightforward FAQ page in place as a "how to" tutorial is a must. The whole "page" vs. "talk page" issue is a stupid reason to want to replace the FAQ page with something we already have. Why don't we just rename the FAQ's talk page as the "Q&A" page? (Like what we've done to the Main Page's talk page, the "Community Portal".) Then all the question stuff is still together, nothing is removed, and the "stigma" there seems to be against talk pages gets to be quelled by the ritzy name. -

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.