MarioWiki:Proposals

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 Rules
 * 1) If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
 * 2) Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (All times GMT.)
 * 3) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 4) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 5) 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. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
 * 6) If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
 * 7) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 8) 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.
 * 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) Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
 * 12) 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
 * 14) If the administrators 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.
 * 15) There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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 cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
 * 17) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format This is an example of what your proposal must 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]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. - ===[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: Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for Talk Page Proposals.)]

====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.


 * For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

Rules
 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected 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. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Delete Mushroom Kingdom Tribune or merge it to Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (Discuss) Deadline: March 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Grand Tail Goomba from Grand Goomba (Discuss) Deadline: March 22, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Split World 2 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) into separate articles for each level. (Discuss) Deadline: March 25, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete The Weekly Wario or merge it to WarioWare: Smooth Moves (Discuss) Deadline: March 31, 2012, 23:39 GMT
 * Split Red and Green into separate articles. (Discuss) Deadline: April 1, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Provide a raw premade aboutfile template for the Upload file page. (Discuss) Deadline: April 1, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Navigation Templates

 * ''Draft: User:Walkazo/Essays

This proposal is aiming to do for navigation templates, what this proposal did for categories. As seen in the draft, this will expand and update Navigation Templates, and while this will not overhaul the system like the categories proposal, there are a few changes, which I'll briefly go over here.

First of all, the policy includes a big chart of colours that should be used for all game- and series-based templates; I also have examples of recoloured templates further down my page. (There was already a proposal about this, but that user didn't create an actual code, so no actual changes could/should have come as a result of its passing.) Non-series-based templates (i.e. stuff like or ) can be given unique colours that pertain to their subject matter, rather than using the same colours as their parent series.

Secondly, the order in which templates should be placed on articles is outlined in the policy: namely, any random templates (i.e. species-based templates) should come first, followed by all the game/series-based templates, which should go in pure chronological order. So, unlike History sections, which clump series together, different games would simply be arranged according to the year they came out, with no regard for when the rest of the series' installations were released. Instead, the templates' colour-coding can be used to pick out all the members of a given series.

Finally, the policy outlines what types of templates can be made. Basically, there are three types of templates, each with slightly different content structure and criteria:
 * Game-specific templates will ideally contain everything about a game, like or, whereas separate templates about certain specific aspects of a game should hereon in be avoided. However, if a subject is very numerous, such as minigames, levels or RPG items, it can keep its own separate template, since merging it might make the main template too bulky. For example,  (bonus challenges) should be folded into , but  can stay separate. Both the main template and the separate level/whatever template should go on the level articles, but obviously, the level template wouldn't need to go on non-level pages (except the game's page itself, which should have all the relevant game-specific templates).
 * Series-wide templates should almost always be templates that list the games in a series, rather than templates for subjects that are found all throughout a series. These should only be made for things like that have lots of overlap or parallels between games best served by back-to-back comparisons, or things like, where a centralized list of far-reaching subjects is likely to be organizationally useful in a manner similar to species templates (see next entry), but limited to a single series and organized by game. In most cases, however, game-specific templates are a better way to organize things than templates like  or , both of which will be scrapped should this policy pass.
 * Everything else are species templates, which groups things based on what they are, rather than where they come from. Most of these templates will be species-based, like or, but important items like , and even a few miscellaneous subjects like  or  are given this sort of template too. The only stipulation is that they all have to be decently important, numerous and/or complicated: really minor and small, or overly large, vaguely defined groups of species (i.e. anything smaller than , or things like Category:Fish) don't need templates, and items and miscellanea are under even stricter scrutiny, so users will have to think long and hard before making templates like these.

The policy also has a big section on how to set up templates (i.e. what headers to use, how to arrange the lists of links, etc.), but that's a lot of nitty-gritty details, and it's mostly explaining what we already do, so I won't go over that here. If you have any questions about details on the draft or aspects that I could only briefly touch upon in the proposal, definitely post them in the comments, but overall, I hope this and the draft are enough to convince you that this will be a vast improvement to the small, outdated policy we have today.

Proposer: Deadline: March 30, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per proposal.
 * 5) This is a great idea. Per Proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per proposal.
 * 9) Per proposal. Little bit complicated, but good idea.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) Per proposal.

Comments
I know you're trying to be clear, but can you please clarify further/sum it up what the changes are? I can't really comprehend what's going to happen, it seems too complex.
 * I don't understand this proposal either. All I know is that it is supposed to improve organization or something in templates. The rest, I had trouble comprehending.
 * The first section (of this proposal) covers the various template colors that are to be used (the color depends on the template). The second section determines template priority (so at the bottom of an article, you'd have species templates, followed by game/series templates (in order of release date by game)). The third section details what information goes into each template. The rest is about making templates in general.
 * Ah, thanks for clearing that up
 * No problem.

Mario4Ever's summary was bang on. And to clarify, this proposal isn't so much about making a few specific changes, but rather, getting a bigger, better policy approved. A lot of the drafted update to Navigation Templates is just explaining unwritten conventions that are already more-or-less followed, but from this point onwards, there will be something concrete to refer back to. It's also regulating a few things that are inconsistent now, or at the very least, making recommendations based on the various ways users are already setting up their templates. There are too many details to list, but there are a few notable features that I can further boil down if you guys do want the specific changes: The template classification and the terminology is also new (under the old system, there's four template types, whereas there's three types in the draft), but that's more of an internal change: it's important from a policy standpoint, but only the above list will really be affecting the wiki at large. A couple of the finer details (which I didn't talk about in the proposal to save space) that will also affect folks are: And that's all I can recall for now; I can't simplify the proposal any more than that without getting rid of the details, but like I said at the beginning of this post, when it comes to an in-the-nutshell description, M4E's post already has it covered. -
 * New colour-coding system (different series get different colours; random stuff gets personalized colours).
 * New order on templates (random stuff first, followed by games in chronological order).
 * Templates about subjects across a series (i.e. ) are now discouraged.
 * Everything about a game should be in one template, rather than multiple smaller ones, which used to be done periodically. The exception to this is when there's a really big subject like SMG galaxies, which can be left separate just to keep the templates from getting unmanageably large.
 * In the cases where there is a separate template for an aspect of a game, both that template and the main template would go on the page (i.e. a SMG galaxy would have both and, but an SMG enemy would only get ), whereas currently, the main template is often omitted.
 * Templates must be 100% wide (most of them already are, but there are a couple that run afoul of this, however a lot of them are already in trouble with the fourth bullet point).
 * If a page has 10 or more templates, they should be collapsed using ; the original threshold is 7. As always, the templates themselves should all be collapsible.
 * Templates should not have categories in them (this is already on the categories policy, but this emphasizes it).
 * Nav templates are for mainspace only (same as the current policy), with galleries and game subpages (/beta, /staff, etc.) getting their own special templates.
 * Really minor or vaguely defined subjects shouldn't get templates (i.e. yes to and, no to  or  , same as always.

Would Template:GPteams be merged to Template:PM2 as a result of this proposal?

I have a question about the templates: would it be a good idea if we add pictures to some templates? Or do all of them have to be a solid color?


 * Reversinator: No, GPteams is large and complex enough to remain separate: it's a good idea to sort the teams, but it would take up too much room and draw too much focus to a relatively minor aspect of the game to do so in the main PM2 template. LeftyGreenMario: Solid colour; templates don't need flashy pictures, and most won't get them anyway, which will just make things inconsistent and draw extra attention to a few select templates, wrecking the uniformity of the colour-coded blocks. However, I do think the image-background currently used on would be a neat addition to, seeing as that template is unique, and appears on a special group of articles (which are all about images).  and other templates like  or  might also work with that image setup, but with different background colours (i.e. dark blue from the water levels, and black for castles/underground; after that we'd have to get creative), or possibly different games' sprites, although that would be a lot more complex to make and set up. I didn't include that idea in the policy draft right off the bat, since I'm still mulling over the details, and seeing as it's a very specialized idea, I'd rather get specific approval for it with a subsequent Proposal. -
 * Also, it would be nice to see what the templates will look like when it's finished. Considering the support in this proposal, maybe you can work on the future templates as soon as possible. That way, I can have a better understanding what the result will be. Also, it is possible to make templates always expanded when only a few of them are present, like in the minigame articles?
 * The future templates are currently here
 * Hm, my CSS makes all those templates the same color. :P
 * You can see how it looks like when you log out.
 * Odd - I copied all the actual template codes directly and then swapped the colours, nothing more: no idea why there'd be a problem seeing them. (Also, this is actually a more direct link to the test templates.) Anyway, I don't know if there's any way to make templates automatically expanded on short pages, but I wouldn't recommend it anyway: it'd be inconsistent with long pages, pushing the [show] button isn't exactly arduous, and personally, I think it looks better when they're automatically collapsed anyway - it makes the pages less bottom-heavy. -

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Merge all Super Mario World level articles
Goomba's Shoe 15 (Raven Effect) said to me that the SMW levels have names so therefore should have articles, but I think he's worng.

Firstly the names are very basic (Yoshi's Island 1, Yoshi's Island 2) it just has the name of the world before what number level it is instead of the name of the world and the Castles have the similar names anyway. Then the levels are the same length and have the same style like the games where their levels are merged into their world articles. Lastly the Speical world levels are the only exection to this, as they all have diffrent names but then they are only on word and my point is that they are like World 9 in NSMBW.

Proposer: Deadline: March 21, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) While yes some do have names like Yoshi's Island 1 but some have named like Awesome so unless you want to merge all levels from every game into the world articles like More Monkey Madness than I have to oppose. Also per my comments
 * 2) – Per Raven Effect. Another aspect of this is that they are relatively well-written, and they have somewhat more information than the usual sections devoted to levels in the usual world articles.
 * 3) – Per both my comment and Raven Effect.
 * 4) Per Raven Effect. Also, this would destroy the use of the information templates in the articles. Merging the articles into a world article wouldn't make it any more convenient, and it would make all of the articles less easy to read.
 * 5) Per all, it's fine the way it is.
 * 6) Um... Does it matter if the articles have nice titles or not. I don't think so.
 * 7) - If a level has an actual name, then it gets its own article.  It's as simple as that.
 * 8) Per Tails777.

Comments
No, the Special World levels don't count as like 9-1, 9-2, 9-3… that's another story. And we don't name for example Yoshi's Island 1 as (likely) "Course 1" then merging it in the world article. Super Famicom 64 ( Talk )
 * The problem with this proposal is that it wants to merge levels like Awesome which have separate names but if we do that we need to merge all the Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey series levels to keep things consistent
 * And then merge all of the courses of SMB, SMB2J, SMB3, SMW, YI, and so on into their respective worlds… It' also annoying and DIFFICULT.
 * Actually we already do merge the levels from SMB, SMB2, SMB3, NSMB, and NSMB Wii since their names consist of only numbers
 * Oh not noticed. But YI, SMW and several pther games do have different names… --Super Famicom 64 13:59, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Regarding Comments not Pertaining to Improving the Article
Users posting comments relating to the game and not the article has always been the norm in the wiki, especially with new games coming out. However, me and several users are tired of constantly reminding users to cease posting comments that belong in the forums. There's a big, green template that reminds users that the talk page is not a forum. There are users out there that constantly remind the violators of the template not to post content that belongs in the forums. Problem is? Many more tend to continue to ignore these firm reminders.

Here, I'm proposing that we take a more assertive approach to this. Instead of reminding users not to post comments not pertaining to the article, we should immediately undo such comments. These comments do not take measures to improve the article and if they don't belong there, why are they there in the first place? If a user makes a comment, we should undo it, and tell them on their talk page to not do such things. If they continue doing it (about 3-5 more times, but it's tentative depending on the situation), they will be in grounds for a reminder and so on.

Once this proposal (if) passes, we will immediately delete any comments made that belong in the forums. The previous comments that also belong in the forums will be left untouched. I hope this proposal will make sure the users get a firm reminder into not posting forum related stuff on article talk pages made for improving the article.

Proposer: Deadline: March 24, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) To those that think this new measure is harsh: this proposal is created because the green template on the top of the page is ineffective at deterring users from posting forum comments. I am also aware that new users make this mistake as well, so we have to tell them precisely once they break this rule. However, we cannot be too lenient with the rule. I am also annoyed by the constant mistakes other users make and this rule is supposed to decrease future annoyance. I think newer users will make this mistake in the future, but at least we can try to stop them from making future forum-like comments.
 * 2) – While I haven't reminded any to have discussions made on talkpages to pertain to the article, I for one support actually enforcing a rule – if a rule isn't enforced, then why should the rule even exist?
 * 3) If users want to talk about the game they can do it on the Forum.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) – To say that in the template: "This is not a forum for discussions about Mario Paty 9." (I take that game as an example). We should make it more noticeable, such as placing in it a warning sign.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per the events on Template talk:Notforumtalk that led to this proposal.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all. I'd even support a motion to retroactively get rid of the comments that have been allowed up 'til now: that way, no one would see the old stuff and assume they can make more of it (if there's no template, and like many users, the newcomer didn't read the rules, all they'd have to go on is what other people did on pages).
 * 10) Per Walkazo.
 * 11) Per all
 * 1) Per all

Comments
@Super Famicom 64: It doesn't matter what we do. A big, green, noticeable template at the top of nearly every single talk page still won't deter users from making forum related posts. I feel that no matter how flashy we make it, users will still break the rules and that's that. That's why I'm proposing to enforce it.
 * @Super Famicom 64: I agree with BLOF no matter how noticeable you make it people will go "Hey look a template i'm just gonna ignore that"
 * I'm wondering why that template was made if those guys are ignoring that.
 * Because they wanted to inform people that this isn't a forum but since some people just say "Screw reading" it tends to get ignored.

Hm, I'll greatly consider ridding of the old comments too.
 * After having read Walkazo's comment myself, I am also greatly considering removing the old comments, reason being the same Walkazo took up.

Dealing with Pipeproject
What's wrong with Pipeproject? Many things.


 * It isn't used as it should, or for anything really. The ostensible goal of the pipeprojects is to help organize discussion and coordinate efforts, but a cursory glance at any Pipeproject pages shows that there's barely any of that. Most users simply create or expand articles on their own, and the impact of a pipeproject is limited to maybe someone putting a template on the talk or users signing-up on a pipeproject page to show that they "care". A great example of this is Pipeproject:New Games, which has a whooping 116 users signed up (a ridiculous number of which haven't edited since 2007 or 2008), which would make it a fantastically unreadable mess were it used as it should. Thank God it isn't, eh?
 * Nobody uses it. A cursory glance at the history of the main pipeproject page shows that it has been edited since the beginning of the year less than the proposal page has been edited this month. The "active" individual pages gets at most 2 or 3 edits per month and at least one of them hasn't been edited since close to half-a-year.
 * Related to the above, nobody maintains it. The rules says project have two weeks to amass ten supporters, but it can take many months before anybody scrubs it of failed or invalid projects (which is most of them). This shows nobody is interested in making the system work.

tl;dr, Pipeproject as it exists now is an useless, bloated waste of space and the Mariowiki staff unanimously agree it really doesn't deserve to be kept in its current form any longer. Assuming this proposal pass, the existing pages will be locked and have a message (a Poll Selection) saying they're archives. as Templates such as http://www.mariowiki.com/Template:Partofpipe might remain for nostalgia, but with a note in small print to the effect of “Pipeprojects have been moved to the forum, this template is kept for historical purpose”.

The forum? Well yeah, we still think there's an use for a space dedicated to discussing wiki editing and the forum provides an environment better suited to discussion than the relative clunkyness of wiki pages. Threads such as this, this or that shows that the forum can be used to effectively coordinate and discuss wiki matters and registering on it is free and does not require any more information than a wiki account, so why not use it?

Now here's a few details on how the hypothetical forum board would be set up:


 * The board would start as a child board of General Discussion with the possibility of it becoming its own section if it becomes popular enough.


 * There would be no requirements for activity or thread creation. As long as more than one user agree on an editing project, they can go ahead and do it as long as the change is not too "big" or potentially controversial (see next bullet point).


 * The only "hard" rule would be that new features, removal of long-established content, change to policies or major changes in general should go on the proposal page. However, forum threads can still be used to discuss if there's a problem and how it should be fixed, or if there's a need for a feature.

Keep in mind none of this is set in stone and that we're more than willing to collect feedbacks from the users (on the forum, the pipeproject talk page, the comments on this proposal, IRC, my talk, you name it.) on how such a board should be implemented. Supposing this proposal pass, there will be a second proposal on a definitive structure.

Proposer: Deadline: March 25, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Scrap the wiki Pipeproject (aggressively) and device a replacement on the forum

 * 1) per what i wrote.
 * 2) – I don't see any point in having a wiki-section that clearly isn't doing what it's supposed to. The supposed pipeprojects also never get started, making the page a mess of many suggested PPs that never, ever see the light of day. Again, if a wiki-section is useless – remove it!
 * 3) Per Glowsquid most that get proposed never get started people join just to join them and never actually do anything to help so there pretty much useless.
 * 4) Per proposal. This aspect of the community has remained stagnant for far too long.
 * 5) – Per proposal, and per all of the support. It's worth a try, anyway.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) per proposal, see comments as well.
 * 8) Per Proposal.
 * 9) Although I'm not going to be in the forums as much anymore (when's the last time I posted? November 2011?), the PipeProjects for me was VERY unnecessary. The PipeProjects is simply not practical considering the nature of where I want to improve. Sometimes, I want to work on Mario Party 5. Other times, Super Mario Strikers concerns me. Other times, I want to edit the grammar. Other times, I want to upload screenshots for the Mario Kart courses. My interests vary from place to place, but with my shifting hyperfocus, I won't stay in a single "PipeProject" for long, given if I ever joined one. This is the biggest reason I don't want to join a PipeProject. There is also a reason I don't create PipeProjects because I know how stagnant the progress is. I'm afraid nobody will join it. So, the PipeProjects is useless. If a group of users want to collaborate on a section or category of pages, then they can do it informally, by talk pages. PipeProjects aren't required to make a group of users want to improve an article.
 * 10) Per all; the current PipeProject system on the Wiki itself is completely out of order. Needs to be revamped via the method the proposer is suggesting.
 * 11) - Per proposal. In fact, I'd be cool with scrapping the unused and unnecessary system without replacing it, and instead telling people to just drum up support for their endeavours with casual forum and talk page conversations, but I suppose making a dedicated place for those sorts of threads is a fair middle ground. Hopefully it'll be used, unlike the old system, but if not, at least we tried.
 * 12) I checked the Pipeprojects the day before this was proposed and nothings happening with it. It's just a waste.

Leave it be

 * 1) We'll end up in being a wiki with most of the services (PipeProjects, Proposals, etc.) in the forums. No joke.
 * 2) Not every user here has a forum account. I would say that all users are all allowed to create new pipe projects and that if there is less than three members in the pipe project after two weeks, the page is deleted.
 * 3) NOO! Don't get rid of the Pipeprojects!! It is a great way for peple to see what the Wiki needs, most, and people can work together to get tasks done! And per New Super Yoshi, I rarly go on forums, and I'm sure other people are the same. Leave it here on the Wiki!

Comments
@Super Famicom 64: That's a textbook slippery slope fallacy. There's no reason to move the Proposals to the forum because they're being used extensively and used as they should. The pipeproject pages as they exist now, though, are not used by anybody and they don't contribute anything substantial to the wiki, so why keep them?

@New Super Yoshi: As I mentioned in the proposal text, registering on the forum is quick, free and does not requires more personal info than the wiki so I have an hard time imagining why anybody would actively refuse it. If for some reason, an user does not want to register onthe forum, they can still help grunt work-style projects on their own or message the involved forum users on their talk.

Reducing the number of supporters required might help an handful of projects, but deal is, even projects that technically meet the requirements don't get made into pages. This show there just isn't any interest in the current system. --Glowsquid 10:19, 18 March 2012 (EDT)


 * It was just an example, I did not mean Proposals is about to be moved too. And hmm… "and it does not require more personal information than a wiki account". I agree, but while registrating it doesn't require you put your real name, surname, age and/or gender. --Super Famicom 64 10:34, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Registering on the forum only requires your username/e-mail/password (duh) and answering a captcha and a bunch of very easy questions to deter spambots. No other personal information is required. --Glowsquid 11:10, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

I just thought of an idea how this board could be implemented, which goes a little something like this: Is this a good idea, or am I taking this a bit too far?
 * 1) Make a thread, title being the title of the project, with the first post explaining what its aims are, and what ways there are to accomplish it.
 * 2) When enough editors are willingly participating in it, the topic gets stickied, making it easily visible for everyone.
 * 3) As it goes along, its title could be modified, making the title express what articles are currently being worked on, how much of the project is left to do, etc.
 * 4) Finally, when the project is considered done by a majority of votes, the thread gets locked and unstickied, making room for more projects. The voters here would be the participating editors, disallowing people not participating in the project to vote.
 * 5) If a project needs to be re-opened, then users may post in an official 'Open A Closed PipeProject'-thread, explaining why they want it re-opened and a vote has been instated, with a majority of the votes deciding whether to open it or close it again.
 * That's more involved and bureaucratic than what I thought of, but it's not bad. --Glowsquid 11:10, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

I've long thought that the PipeProjects was something in need of being stripped down. Aside from never being used, it's kinda just...not needed. A good chunk of the projects are based around general wiki maintenance, things that are already being taken care of on a daily basis and have been since before the project. The rest are either things that were going to happen anyway in the normal course of article development or are low priority additions that also were going to happen in the normal course of article development. If someone thinks they need help with completing a project or otherwise needs an editor for this or that, a forum topic or a quick trip to the chat are better, faster options. They way PipeProjects stand, they are an unused, unneeded waste of resources. -- Ghost Jam 1:47, 18 March 2012 (PST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.