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) 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.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Platform Games
There are a few stubby pages around the wiki that all deal with platform game types. They are 3-D Platform Game, Sidescroller, and Platform Game. My proposal is should we merge the first two pages with Platform Games or keep them separate and distribute the info in platform games between them because currently information will end up getting repeated or incomplete if we leave all three the way they are.

Proposer: Deadline: Tuesday June 30th, 17:00

Merge Together

 * 1) I say merge them, they are all about Platformer games anyway. Just make two sections on the page ( ==Sidescroller== and ==3-D Platformers== ) and then add the subdivisions ( in example, ===Super Mario Bros.=== ).
 * 2)  It's always nicer to have one medium-length page than several short pages, just for clarity's sake.
 * 3) Per above.

Comments
Honestly I need a few suggestions before I vote.
 * I agree that 1 article would be sufficient

Changes
None at the moment.

Poll Selection Page
I looked at the Poll selection page, and I have to admit something: It is a disaster. So here is what I am proposing: We clean it up. To get more into detail: If this is passed, and it works, we can make suggesting and voting on new polls easier, quicker, and more efficient. Also, this plan can reduce loading time for the pages. Proposer: Deadline: Friday, 3 July 2009, 20:00
 * We have it split into multiple pages with 25 suggested polls on each page (In example, we have MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page1, MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page2, and so forth. We can link them together with a table like on the Proposals Archive, for example.
 * No signatures. I know this was already a rule, but many users either A) Get around the rules by putting the images as they are in their signature and then putting the allowed coding. B) Flat out ignore the rule and post a signature. After a while, when users start doing this, it becomes out of hand to deal with the problem. All in all, what I am saying here is: You are only allowed to sign with or Whatever.
 * Other laws of organization: Basically, if/when this proposal passes, we enforce these rules on a regular basis, and if it is necessary, make rules to adapt to new situations. This is obvious, but it did not seem to work on the page.

Reorganize Poll Selection Page

 * 1) Per my reasoning above and Timmy Tim's vote below.
 * 2) It's falling apart and needs mending. Deleting repeat polls and one with more opposers than supporters will also have to be done.
 * 3) - Agreed. I've been wanting to do that by posting messages on the Poll Selection talk page and asking if I actually could do it, but a proposal definitively is the best way to enforce these rules and make that "disaster" a good page. If you need help with it, I'm up to the job. (I don't know if that expression exists, but w/e :P)

Comments
Paper Yoshi, I'm sorry to say I can't have your help in reorganizing the page right now, but in helping to observe the rules and help keeping it cleaned after I finish reorganizing it will help me a whole lot, as we might as well not do the proposal if the page is going to get messed up again. So, once again, to help me, all you need to do is keep the page clean once I'm finished. Thank you for your wanting to help me though.

Enforce No-Signature Policy
I feel that the "No-Signature Policy" on many of the pages around the wiki have been utterly violated. Many of the users like to use the "letter of the law" technique as opposed to the "spirit of the law", which, in other scenarios, is okay, but is not good to this policy. Due to many pages that feature the "No-Signature Policy" having limited space, they cannot touch upon the many ideas that were originally expressed when this "policy" went into enactment. As of such, as I stated earlier, many users dodge the rules (see the second bullet in my above proposal about the Poll Selection page). As of such, I would like to create one page that has detailed rules on the subject, and that could be linked to pages that share these many ideas. The page, if created, would most likely be titled  MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy . A rough draft of my proposed page can be located here. Proposer: Deadline: Sunday, 5 July 2009, 15:00

Make the New Page

 * 1) Remember, this proposal was not made to prevent this from happening, it was made to stop what is currently going on and prevent it from happening again in the future.
 * 2) - We can use a page like that to explain why we need to enforce the use of the -Template instead of personalized signatures.

Comments
On what pages exactly has this rule been violated? What pages are under this rule, anyway? - 17:36, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Technically, the rule has been violated on the featured images page as well as the poll selection page, which say that no signatures are allowed. Most times, signatures are frowned upon because of the images or size, that they ruin counting and slow computers down, among others. Users, instead, post the image and then allowed coding. They basically dodge the rules, so they are technically not breaking them in the way that they are stated, but they are skipping around the original intents that the rules stated were based on. Which is why I proposed this, to make a policy that is more in depth and that can be linked to on these pages.