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. 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.

Splits & Merges
None at the moment

Changes
None at the moment.

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: (With great advice from ) 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.
 * 3) - Sounds good. Per all.

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.

I made changes on the page that is linked to. Walkazo gave me some great suggestions, and I incorporated them into the rules list.
 * More changes have been made. Credit goes to Walkazo for the changes, she is really helping me with the ideas for the page.

I find it ridiculous and annoying that almost all proposals these days are about signature rules.
 * I know, I hate making them just as much, but when we have users that dodge rules, it has to be done. Plus, this should be the last proposal about signatures (other problems about the signatures can be dealt with by a minor proposal, per say, on the discussion of a page that needs to deal with signature problems).

No Name, No Vote, No creator's username, deleted poll
Alright, so I was looking at the poll selection page, as everybody know it is becomeing disorganized, cluttered-up, and a mess, so I came up with an idea to fix that problem. I propose that if anybody makes a poll and he/she doesn't leave there username as (under support): #(username here) (creator), or any other way to tell other users that he/she is the creator of that poll, that poll will be deleted. Also, if anybody support, oppose, and/or comment without leaving there username there vote or comment will also be deleted, because when users don't leave there username before they support or oppose, everybody elses votes after that user will be altered. If this proposal does pass, it will be easier to keep track of the polls and it can eliminate a lot of polls, if they don't follow this rule.

Proposer: Deadline: Friday, 10 July 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! This proposal was made to prevent confusion upon keeping track of the polls and confusion of the votes, like I said if this proposal does pass it will be easier to keep track of the polls and it can eliminate a lot of polls if they don't follow this rule. One more thing, the title was last minute, if any of you have ideas please put it in the comments. Zero signing out.
 * 2) This is good,because if there is a poll where a person could support,but then oppose without putting their username,and if the creater's poll is deleted and he didn't put their username,how are we going to know who to tell that their poll was deleted?
 * 3) Yeah, some polls, like that godawful Mario V Godzilla one are so bad that not even their creator will suport them.
 * 4) User:Mario freak Per all. oh and by the way if you go to my page you will know why I put that Mario vs. Godzilla page up. Peace Out!
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose All

 * 1) - YES to: Delete future polls without a credited user, delete votes without names, and restrict the number of open polls per starter. NO to: removing the archives or applying those new rules to the archives. - My reasons: We really need to regulate it because it is a mess; but I don't see any point in touching the archives. I don't think you can enforce new rules retroactively.

Comment
Man, why dont we just delete ALL the Polls, they are a huge problem, they are not updated, they are a MESS. Want me to continue?
 * I would have to say Tucayo has a great point, also, I would like to add that this does not have to be a proposal, it is basically understood that all users need to sign there comments, votes, and the such; and we don't have to create a rule that basically states the obvious. Also, per my above vote.
 * Per Tucayo, so.... where should i paste my vote? i mean i think Deleting all them is a good idea
 * I'm working on splitting the page and removing ones that break rules, I would say oppose right now because all the work I'm doing (and that went into my proposal which passed). Do whatever you feel is right, your vote does not have to be what I want it to be, but you have my suggestion.

Timmy Tim, I already deleted the Godzilla one.
 * Plus, I already split the page. If you still want to go through with the proposal, then most of the unnecessary polls are already gone. I deleted the ones with two more opposes than supporters, which brought the number of polls down to 98. So, if this proposal passes, you need to re-merge the pages, and request a sysop to delete the pages that are left over.
 * I renamed the oppose section because Tucayo made a new section, I now realize that it is not a good idea to delete all the polls. I already went through all the polls, deleted what needed to be deleted, etc.

Cobold, he rewrote the proposal so that it would not affect the archives, I suggest changing your votes. The proposal now seems to be in favor of your vote. 23:23, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Article censorship
I want to settle this once and for all. Do we want to censor the Bob Hoskins article or not? Proposer: Deadline: 4 July 2009, 20:00

Don't censor it

 * 1) We are a wiki dedicated to using full information on Mario, I wouldn't say to censor it
 * 2) - This has been settled once and for all - on many occasions! This is an encyclopedia: our mandate is to communicate as many facts about Mario as we can, and that includes profane quotations. We do not censor anything. Fortunately, in the case of Bob Hoskins, there is a way to communicate his negative attitude towards the Super Mario Bros. film without including the f-word, and we decided to go with option a while ago to avoid this reoccurring nightmare of a debate.
 * 3) &mdash;An encyclopedia's goal is to report accurate information. We are under no obligation to censor facts just because people could potentially be offended by a simple word. It is the parent's responsibility to teach their children right and wrong, not ours. Our only goal is to report facts relating to the Mario series.

Censor it

 * 1) We have younger users on the wiki, I say censor it due to them having accounts and being active.

Comments
I think this younger person stuff is bullcrap because if we all know what a swear is then how is exposing us to a swear gonna hurt us? Explain that smb.
 * Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok? we are supposed to be an age-friendly wiki. Movies and games themselves are rated PG-13 and T for Teens when swear words are present, and we are supposed to be a G-rated or E for Everyone wiki. So why do you want your bullsh*t so bad, huh?

I wouldn't think it would by true to the quote by changing quotes however. Why would anyone care about a quote with the f-word in it? Yknow I used to not swear at all but when I realized it was pointless to not swear I swear all the time now.
 * Yes, that may be the case for you, but others try not to or don't like to. I myself do not like to curse. I find it vulgar and unnecessary. If we censor it, readers still understand that a curse word is being said, so what is the loss?

This whole edit war is pointless anyway. Its only going on because Max2 acted immature about a little swear

Enough of the flamey remarks, already. We have no mandate to be a "kid-friendly" Wiki, all we are obligated to do is tell the truth. Every time someone goes on the Internet, they run the risk of running into profanity, or worse, and heck, you take the same exact risk everything you go outside. It's not our responsibility to shield little kids from words they are gonna learn sooner or later, and if it interferes with our abilities to communicate all the Mario-centric information at our disposal, we shouldn't even be trying. In the case of Bob Hoskins we can preserve most of that quote without profanity; it was a compromise many agreed on, and it still stands. -
 * And to you, Walkazo, a proposal has been made, I'm not going to be shut up. I find it ridiculous that this is considered flaming, or that you consider this flaming, as I am stating my point of view.

I'm done arguing and wasting my breath about this even though it was pointless in the first place. Go ahead and go eat each other if you want I'm setting this one out.
 * Yeah, ok.

In response to SMB's earlier comment: A) I said "flamey", not "flaming". B) I wasn't talking about the proposal itself, I was talking about the comments: "So why do you want your bullsh*t so  bad, huh?" "Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok?" "Explain that smb." - that's all egging each-other on, which is "flamey" - you're both rearing for a fight, and that's not acceptable, so just cool your jets. -

In response to Walkazo: Ok. Directed towards CD: Please delete this proposal. If the edit war is pointless, please just delete it. You should have dealt with Max2 yourself or had another user, perhaps sysop or bureaucrat, deal with him.