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 anoother 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 1, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
 * Merge Spookum and Snifit (Discuss) Deadline August 29th, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
 * Merge Final 5 Frenzy into Last Five Turns Event (Discuss) Deadline: August 30th, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
 * Merge KP Koopa into KP Koopas (Discuss) Deadline: September 2, 2010 at 24:00 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)

New Features
None at the moment.

Remove Fake Templates
Recently, I have come across many userpages saying "this user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt," or something of that sort. I also have seen many fake talk page message announcements (I used to have one, I removed it today because it was dumb). These templates are stupid and pointless. Let's eradicate them for once and for all!

Proposer: Voting start: 29 August 2010, 0:30 (GMT) Deadline: 5 September 2010, 23:59 (GMT)

Support

 * 1) - Before you all get mad at me for going with this proposal, just hear me out. All I mostly want is to change the picture of Warning. If we don't do about it, then it can be worse then fake message boxes as people could freak out at the sight of one before they read it, and then get mad depending on the user. But I do have to admit they are pointless if you get more than one.

Oppose

 * 1) I would have supported if it regards the removal of real-looking reminders, warnings, etc., but since this proposal deals with all types of fake templates, I'm forced to oppose. I believe that having fake article templates on your page is funny and it tells the viewer that you have a sense of humor, plus there's no harm in that (and since it lacks the ability to trick you with excitedness, a la fake new message box, it's less harmful than a fake new message box). I, however, do understand the tedious process required to rummage through warnings to find out which one is a real one.

Comments
I understand all of those fake templates that do not alter the content of the actual one at all, but I'll laugh at anyone who gets fooled by a fake template with different text and/or a different color. It's like the fake new message box template. I'll probably enforce the removal of fake templates that look exactly the same as the actual one, but not the one where its content gets altered, such as text, size, or words.

If this is about removing fake templates that look genuine, I'll support. Otherwise, no. I don't see the harm about obviously fake templates other than being "stupid and pointless", which is still your opinion.

Maybe you don't see any harm done, but the ones who have to work with those templates and issue blocks on their base sure do. Warnings are an indicator for how a user behaves in the community. They are there to help identifying trouble-makers. If you add fake-warnings into the mix, you make the job of those who have to keep any eye on those trouble-makers needlessly tedious. I for one have better things to do than staying on a talk page and identifying which warning is valid and which is a bad joke, when all I want to do is simply count them. It may be funny for you (for whatever reason), but it's respectless towards others. -
 * But what's your opinion on warnings or reminders when the content gets altered? I told you, I understand those real-looking templates, but how about ones where the words that normally are in a reminder gets replaced? Or when pictures of warnings are altered?
 * I still do not see the harm done in obviously fake reminders/warnings. I tend to read the warnings anyway to see what the person had done to receive it. I understand real-looking fake ones, because you cannot tell the difference unless you look in the contributions/template HTML. Those ones I cannot distinguish by reading are the ones that should be the pain in the butt, not the obviously fake ones.
 * When I search for previous warnings in pages, I mainly look for the little warning sign images. If you put 20 fake warnings on your page which all have that image, it becomes incredibly annoying to have to search for and read all of them to keep track of how many actual warnings the user in question has. It forces me to dig through all of the page(s) and search for little wording differences to make sure I don't accidentally read a fake warning as a real one. It also confuses new users, who don't have enough experience to identify those warnings as fake. All in all, fake warnings do reflect bad on the user who has them, and I'd advise them to remove them. -
 * I for one don't understand warnings. I mean i know that the ones given to you by sysops and patrollers are 100% accurate. But what about userbased ones? Some users don't know the rules of the wikis so much so they might overreact to a certian offense and give them a warning. I remember Larryman as a particular person who did that. So I want to know the rules of warnings. Is it also ok to make a proposal on a unanimous rules about warnings?


 * @Edofenrir: Oh, me too. Who doesn't like that little warning sign? How about we replace the picture? Like say, a Wario head, or something. We are all image learners.


 * One more thing, how about fake templates (fake rewrites) on userpages? After all, we are not allowed to have them real ones, and if there is a real one, there will be a category on the bottom of the page. But, yeah, looking at them at a glance will confuse you. I understand that procedure.


 * By the way, I started this entire fake warning thing. :( I'm sorry. I wasn't intending to be bad. I was just fooling around with other users.

I tend to read the whole warning template, not just look for the image. I never saw an instance where there are 20 warnings on a page. I would assume that most are fake, but I'll still take a look. Warnings don't take that long to read. How about other fake templates, like fake block templates? Most of the time, there are only one block template. I made my block template super-obvious that it is fake. Where's an instance where a fake warning template confuses a new user? I'm pretty sure every user that gets warned for "being himself" knows that this is a joke. Even then, the person who issued this warning can say this is a fake.
 * New users are new to HTML (most of the time) and they don't understand it (me, I don't get it, but I know how to use it). They would probably want to mimic you and place an actual block template on their page. Not everyone is like you. Me, I'd go for the image, not the text. I scan stuff, not look over them, since I'm pretty busy.
 * Well, the original question is if those templates are disrupting, and as one who has to work with them daily I can say: Yes, they are. Most other people who have to work with them agree that they are distracting. You might say they aren't, based on that you sometimes read some warning templates for fun, but please keep in mind that we aren't doing this for fun. It is our job to keep this site running smoothly. In order to do that, we have to keep our eyes on many users at once. We don't have the luxury to spend big chunks of our time on one userpage to sort out warnings. The warning system was introduced to help us, who have to identify and block trouble-makers, and toying around with that system, even without any ill intent, is disruptive and makes our job harder. We merely ask you to consider that. -
 * Again, do these fake templates (fake rewrite, fake FA, fake image) count? You only regarded warnings and reminders.
 * They aren't as distracting as fake warnings, but I honestly see no point in having them on your page. It's not very funny, they don't tell us anything about you, and they are generally useless. They don't cause any harm other than making our userbase look immature, though, so if you can live with that... -
 * Eh, I personally don't use them, but I find them a little bit hilarious, but humor is defined in the eyes of the perceiver, so I respect your opinion. But this proposal is dealing with ALL fake templates. Not just the warning ones.
 * Edofenrir, I want to know if you can tolerate fake warnings with a fake pictures and weird colors. There are people that find the fake templates funny and others do not. I'm not supporting this proposal until it can satisfy the people that find fake templates funny and others (like you) that think otherwise.

Though I haven't gotten the time to read this whole discussion, I'm agreeing with Edofenrir on this. It's annoying when you have to find which warnings are fake and which are real.

I agree with Edo. It is a bit annoying. However, if the image in the warning is replaced.(the ! sign). Then maybe that's okay.

Removing Did You Know
I haven't been on the MarioWiki in a while, but I know there have been quite a few proposals for the main page. But I have yet another one, this time on the trivia section of the main page "Did You Know?". I have never understood the purpose of this section, as all it's for is to state bland info about random games, characters, etc. I doubt anybody is interested in it, and quite frankly, since it's updated every week, there is so little trivia left. And if you guys were willing to remove the featured images, I don't see why you wouldn't want to remove this.

Proposer: Voting start: 29 August, 2010, 13:00 GMT Deadline: 5 September, 2010, 24:00 GMT

Support

 * 1) Since I propoposed the proposed proposal, I suport the proposal I proposed.

Comments
What will replace it?
 * Umm.... I'm not sure. If it's removed, a pretty small part will be left, so I don't know what we could replace it with. And even if a large space was left, it wouldn't make much of a difference, since I still wouldn't know what to replace it with.
 * Well, since the FIs were removed. Then why not this. Sounds pointless to me. There is no need to replace it.

I don't see a reason to remove this template if it's not going to be replaced.
 * Does it need to be replaced? I mean, if you think it needs to be replaced, suggest something.

What about the old window that shows article needing rewrite and talk pages needing answers?

Changes
None at the moment.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.