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 start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
 * 3) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 4) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite his/her own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 5) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 9) 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.
 * 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) 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.
 * 12) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 13) If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 14) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, 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 Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format
This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.] Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
 * 1) [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the heading.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Lakitu Travel into List of Implied Organizations (Discuss) Extended: September 9, 2010 at 23:59 GMT.
 * Merge The Dreadnought into Dreadnought Galaxy (Discuss) Deadline: September 9, 2010 23:59 GMT.
 * Merge Chump Charity into Last Five Turns Event (Discuss) Deadline: September 9th, 2010 (24:00)
 * Merge Starfish into Starfy (Discuss) Deadline: September 12th, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
 * Merge Nurse Toadstool into Princess Peach (Discuss) Deadline: September 18th, 2010 at 23:59 GMT.

Make a "No Spam" Usertalk Page Policy
Recently, a bunch of friends of mine (you know who you are) placed a lot of images in my talk page. Though it was funny at first, it considerably stretched my userpage and extended it, so it gave me really bad loading times. Same goes for copying text from certain articles and placing them into my talk page, which also extends it until the loading server lags extensively just to load up my talk page in case it has new messages.

What I'm proposing is a new policy to prevent "spamming" user talk pages with images or text (this also includes friendly encounters). "Spamming" the talk pages with a load of images and text not only gives it a big deal to load up a page and stretches it horizontally, it also gives users like me a hard time to navigate through them to find any new messages a user might put. Plus, we are forced to make another archive as soon as this occurs. I know I can just remove them myself, but it is much easier if the "spamming" is prevented in the first place. Any "spamming" of the past will be kept, but any future "spamming" will get immediately deleted in user talk pages. I do not think that spamming" improves talk pages in any way. Talk pages are supposed to be used for chatting with other users, rather than fill it up with useless content. It also makes it harder for the administration and others to work through the pages if they want to drop a comment or something.

I'm also proposing this to be enforced, just in case it happens to any unwary user, ignorant user, or a user who just wants to play around with his/her friends.

Proposer: Voting start: 6 September 2010, 20:33 GMT Deadline: 12 September 2010, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - It was really annoying how you had to scroll to the side in order to read the messages and it did take more time to load with all that crap on it.
 * 2) No more giant user talkpages.
 * 3) When I look at my comment, it streched longer than my screen.
 * 4) - I mean it looks nice at first, but then you scroll down forever! Per all.
 * 5) I am Zero! I don't even need to read the proposal, spam on the talk page, no, support, per all. Zero signing out.
 * 6) - When I first saw all that Wario Spam, I decided that the spamming users were "Wario Wierdos". I then tried to avoid their talkpages as much as possible; not because they love Wario, but because those giant talkpages are an annoying nuisances.

Comments
Wouldn't it be much easier if you just added a rule about this in your talk page?
 * Yes, that's better
 * I concur.

The problem is, people tend to ignore rules. I want to enforce that specific rule about spamming. Besides, when people do that anyway, it just takes up server stress and it's harder for other users to leave a message, or the owner of the talk page to find his/her message


 * If people ignore your rules, then notify it in their talk page.
 * No, I'm going to ENFORCE the rule, so it can be prevented.
 * Aww you don't like my beautiful gifts of Wario? I can't oppose then.
 * Yeah, I do like them, but after a while, I was forced to archive, and forced to view my talk page using "last change" instead of viewing it. It also caused a lot of hassle to load everything up. I do like it when you do that, but sometimes, fun does screw things up :( That's why I'm proposing this. Yes, I do regret it, but I'm doing it for what's good.

IMO this classifies as common sense, do not spam. If people don't follow it, they should get warned.
 * That's what I thought too, but some people also want to play around with their friends by adding a horrendous amount of pictures. This also causes server stress and huge loading times.


 * I do think that all those Wario pics were annoying(even though I pasted some on), but why would they be considered spam?
 * They're not spam as long someone who receives them likes them. I said "spamming", it's not actual spamming :D

Remove Fake Bans/Warnings
OK, now that I royally screwed up my last proposal, let's try this again: On more than a few userpages, I have seen ban notices saying a user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt or something of that sort. These are immature, a waste of space, and can cause you to do a double-take before reading on and finding out that the user wasn't banned, they are just being extremely immature. So now that I've done this properly, let's get rid of this crap.

Proposer: Voting start: 2 September 2010, 00:00 GMT Voting closes: 9 September 2010, 00:00 GMT

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) - *sigh*, here we go again. Anyways, those templates are annoying. They are warnings and are not to be toyed with.
 * 3) - These make sysops job much more difficult.
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) get in my way. Per Proposal
 * 6) I agree. They are official templates and even if the wording and terms are changed, it could still easily confuse new users if they get one of those templates.
 * 7) – Per Tucayo, and Marioguy1.
 * 8) Well, if it's about warnings and bans, then per all!
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Well; reminders, warnings, and bans are not playthings, if you play with them, it could result in several users thinking they are Banned. Some people simply look, they do not always read the content of the template. Also, they are very immature due to the problems I said previously, and that their content contains utter gibberish in templates that are supposed to be very serious.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) I say per all.
 * 13) Per all and I recommend MCD to stop assuming.
 * 14) I disagree on your definition of "immature", but I'm still supporting. SYSOPs do not need to spend unnecessary amounts of time searching for warnings.
 * 15) No more Wario's butt nonsense. Per all.
 * 16) Per everybody. Yes, everybody.
 * 17) - Per all.
 * 18) - Ditto here.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per Lefty Green Mario.
 * 21) - Per all.
 * 22) - Per all, let's try not to make life miserable for the Sysops.
 * 23) - Per all.
 * 24) I agree.
 * 25) Per all. Stupid people spamming with templates. I really agree with the immature part, obviously, too.
 * 26) - Per all.
 * 27) - Those are annoying and when you actually do have a block template up it confuses you.

Comments
Now that I've realized the full effects of my other one, let's just get on with this.


 * I'm not sure navboxes are covered under this either, since they aren't an imitation of any real template. Actually, what exactly is the definition of a fake template? That doesn't seem to be clarified anywhere in this proposal.

This only covers ban notices and warning notices. Navboxes are OK.


 * Yeah, I tried to write that in the original version of this and it didn't work right >_>

So, will the other one get deleted?

Once enough admins agree, I guess.

@2257: To answer your question, a fake template is when a user uses the HTML code for the template rather than the template itself. That way, you don't see the list of pages that links to it on the bottom.

Can this include fake maintenance templates too?
 * Except the Under Construction, because users usually don't finish everything at once.

@MrConcreteDonkey: isn't allowed in userpace.
 * BLOF: No, nothing uses HTML code on a wiki, it all uses wikicode. HTML code is kind of the same yet very different. Anyways, yes, that is a fake template. No, that does not include userboxes due to which is a real template with parameters. However it does include all fake construction templates, fake infobox templates and fake warnings.
 * Oh, and I thought this wiki uses HTML the ENTIRE time x_X

@MG1: Construction templates aren't fake, they just aren't allowed in userspace.
 * "However it does include all fake construction templates". *sigh*

@Ralphfan: I'll support if you add fake maintenance templates on since they have as much significanse as the fake warnings and tal pages. Also, can fake talk page proposals on user talks be banned too?

@MrConcreteDonkey: Yes, yes they are. :)
 * Sorry for being a little harsh, but I get irritated REALLY easily. I can't help it. Please, STOP IT. It makes us look bad.
 * Agreed, putting people down isn't nice. Anyways, I don't really think the fake maintenance templates are that much of a bad thing. They're immature but they don't hurt anyone.
 * I hope MrConcreteDonkey changes his vote. He's the one that look bad right now :P

I don't know what's the big issue on fake construction templates. They are on user pages. What makes you think a USERpage needs rewrite or more images uploaded? I think the people who put fake templates on their page just have some sense of humor, not a sense of immaturity. Of course, opinions differ for each person. Bottom-line: fake rewrites do no harm at all.
 * Mainly because new users tend to place real templates into their pages when they see we had done it and we have to go through the issue of notifying them or removing them. Other than that, there is no harm done.

Alright, sorry LGM and BLOF. I guessed since you opposed the last one immediately, but I guessed wrong and forgot that the 1st one was for all fake templates.
 * It's ok. I first started shouting at you, but then, I removed my comment because I got over it. I accept your apology.

Do you think anyone will fall for this???:


 * No, but it does take up space and ultimately is pointless.

OH, PLEASE! Who in the right mind would agree with that hacked template? Also, Per MrConcreteDonkey. Takes up space and is worthless.
 * Me, in my left, evil mind, cuz I created them :(. It is pointless, but it does show a little of your personality.
 * Next time, make your own template or ask the person before putting it on comments. Thank you.

I feel stupid but, what does "per all" mean?
 * It basically means "I agree with everyone supporting/opposing" (whichever applies), but it's much less effort/time to type. 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes
None at the moment.

Making Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles
I think we should make articles on attacks in the first two Paper Marios that you can only use by the use of a badge (i.e. Quake Hammer, Multibounce). It would be necessary to the wiki, since these ARE attacks of Mario's, and even if he needs a badge to use them they still are attacks of his.

Proposer: Voting start: 2 September, 2010, 12:00. Deadline: 9 September, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I support this proposal and I agree that these attacks should get their own articles.
 * 2) They're ATTACKS. The partner's attacks like Multibonk has seperate articles. So we're saying Mario is LESS important than his allies that appear in one game? Also the other badges aren't needed because they only have effects which will be stubs. This is an ATTACK, and will definitly have more info.
 * 3) Per Booderdash.
 * 4) I taught you meant badges. If it's about attacks, then per booderdash.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! Oppose to the reasoning of that will be an unprofessional idea to only make all the attack-type badges into articles and not the other badges into articles. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Too minor to have an article, belong in the badge's article.
 * 3) - Per all
 * 4) Well, most of the attack badges would not warrant a description longer than a few sentences, they are not more notable than the other badges, just because they are attacks does not mean they have long descriptions. Not to mention, most of the badge attacks are alterations of Mario's pre-badge attacks, thus the do not deserve articles.
 * 5) Badges =/= Attacks. Many short and crappy articles will be created with this. No, just no.
 * 6) Badge attacks are not permanent attacks, unlike the partner attacks. When you get them (if you get them, that is), you can unequip them. Anyway, almost all of them are just souped up versions of Mario's regular attacks, with maybe a different side-effect here and there. Per all.
 * 7) - I mean with a few of them you could, but this proposal is all of them, and not all of them will be necessary articles. Rather have the badge page longer than have like 30+ stubs.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
Wouldn't this be better as a Pipe Project?

Agreed.

Couldn't this be done by making an article that contains all the Badge Effects (if such an article doesn't exist already)?

Its already done in the Badge article. But the MOVES need seperate articles because they're MOVES.
 * What, so an article describing what happens when you use Move Badges?

@Booderdash: Do you realize how many stubs we're gonna have here?

@Frosty, no like how Multibonk has an article, we make articles for Tornado Jump, Power Jump, Power Smash, Ice Smash etc. @FF65, I don't see how we're going to have that many stubs. I mean they're as important as the special moves for Mario Power Tennis. And the moves can be explained in detail. They're also better than Plane Mario.

Well, if all attack badges are given their own articles, shouldn't ALL badges have separate articles?

Why? All other badges only give effects that can be explained with one line. In attacks, many sentences can be written, and it won't be a stub All the other badges will be stubs.

Well, you can not always "write many sentences" for every attack badge, most of them do things that warrant only a sentence or two.

Not the attack BADGE, but the ATTACK. Like Power Bounce. I don't see how thats less of an importance than Multibonk.

Well, I fail to see how that would work with any positive affects.

Then explain why Multibonk, Kiss Thief, Power Lift etc. has articles, because they're just attacks too.

Um..., Gamefreak, I think you're misunderstanding us. We DON'T want to create articles for BADGES, we want to create articles for ATTACKS like Tornado Jump, Ice Smash, and Power Bounce.

Well, two of those three you said should not have articles, If a certain type of badge has an article, they all must, it is one of are policies. Making an article on a badge attack but not the badge itself, that would simply not work.

Look, you probablt don't even have the game. The badge only ALLOWS you to use the attack, but we want to make an article ON the attack. Like Kiss Thief, and Power Lift. So that is ok.

Well, me having the game has nothing to do with this wiki, the badge is functionally what you need to use the attack, thus if the attack deserves a page, the Badge does too. What I mean is, the badge page is created, with the attack in it, if it is created at all, wich it should not.

No, the BADGE name is the EXACT same as the attack so Tornado Jump the badge would be the same thing as the attack. You would need the game to understand, thats why I mentioned it.

Well, I can not under stand you reasoning, what I meant to say was to make a page of the BADGE not the ATTACK, if make the pages at all.

The proposal is about making the attack! Not the badge! Badges only invoke the attacks.

Well, I know that, the pages badge or Attack should not be created, they would cause many stubs, just because they are attacks does not mean they are notable enough for a page.

Any badge attack is notable like any other one. That's why Booderdash said that you should have the game!

Well, any badge is as important as it's own attack are each other. Also, The fact about me not having has no say in the matter.

Yes it does. It means you don't understand the concept of the attack. You NEED the game to understand or maybe just the original Paper Mario. And the badge isn't important, which you'll clearly know if you have the game, its the ATTACK that is.

Well, the badge and the attack it causes have functionally the same notability, the attacks are are slightly altered versions of Mario's normal attacks.

Is it? Multibonk is the exact same as Headbonk, but repeated alot of times, and Power Bounce is a jump repeated alot of times.

Booderdash, It sounds like you are agreeing with me, the pages you want to be made should not be made because they are not notable enough. The attack badges attacks simply alter Mario's (or his partner's) by adding an effect.

Aha! But you see thing thing is they DO have articles, and for THIS consistency to work, we need to make articles for this, since I doubt many people will agree on deleting those articles anways.

Booderdash, the badges nor their effects do not have articles, they are not notable enough for their own articles.

All, the badges are merged together, so why on earth can't we just merge all the attacks?

Agreed, but the badge attacks are already merged.

I guess we could just merge them all. But I just have a feeling not man people would agree on it. I don't know, I guess we can try. (We need to mae a proposal about it first though.) But another thing to note, none of the moves like Multibonk are stubs, so I don't see how Power Bounce will be a stub either.

Baby Mario Bloops, there are only 10ish attacks in Ttyd, and I doubt all of them are going to be stubs.