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 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.

Update One After Another
I propose that everything on the main page like featured article, featured image, poll, and did you know sections should all be updated between one hour to one day after another, it doesn't really matter in what order they should be in, just as long as they are updated, and there time limit should be one week of staying in the main page, Mario news and proposal section should be the only exceptions. I said this because one time the "did you know" section, it had the same three trivias stayed there for about three months and like six months ago on the poll section it didn't work on some computers. The main page is sometimes confusing to keep track of even if your'e a user or just a visitor to the site, so that is why I came up with this idea.

Proposer: Deadline: Monday, 13 July 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! A lot of users will agree on this idea, since its simple but it affects not only users but also visitors coming to the SMW. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Zero.
 * 3) Per Zero.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my first 2 comments below.
 * OK, I think it should be more like, the quote updates every hour, the image every day and the article every week.
 * 1) - Just be glad they get turned over at all. The Wiki is very high-maintenance, and the last thing the few people who have enough initiative to update these features need is an arbitrary schedule to try and follow.
 * 2) Per Walkazo
 * 3) per Walkazo
 * Per Walkazo. Also, I like the way the main page is updated now. I do agree with you (Zero777), though, that the Did You Know section should be updated more often. But obviously there just aren't any users wo would like to do that, and you can't force someone to do it.

Comment
Not to be rude, but that would screw up the Featured Article and/or Featured Images schedule, each one is only supposed to be up on the Main Page for a week, it's not that simple, even though it seems minor, this would require a lot of work during a day. 18:47, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Plus, we don't control the Quote of the Day, it is randomly selected by a program. I agree with you on the subject of the "Did You Know" section, that could use work. 18:52, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * What's funny is that I make 1 proposal about the Poll Selection page, and we get a swarm of them after it passes. 19:02, 6 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: 11 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.
 * 4) I guess every body else is right.
 * 5) Per all. Why not put up a warning template or something like that?
 * 6) I am Zero! A warning template will be a better idea. But I agree with this proposal, first of all SMW is a free encyclopedia that gives information on anything Mario[-related], second we are trying to make Mariowiki as close as possible to Wikipedia with alternations on this webpage, I said that because, in Wikipedia, I don't have an account there but I can still go to an article about a vag***, te*******, se*, and pe*** with pictures and detail and a movie article called Fu** without them being cencored, and last of all on a side-note, try to make your proposal more convinsing. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per All
 * 8) Per Zero
 * 9) - Though on the original proposal I was for censoring it, now I just don't see the point. Whatever.
 * 10) As I have stated in the past, a wiki is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not censor information.
 * Per all. I'm glad to see so many people are against censoring an encyclopedia. Nowhere do we claim that this is a kid-friendly wiki, in fact this is "a collaborative knowledge-base about everything in the Marioverse" (see here), and censoring conflicts with this objective.

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 bullshat 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.
 * Since it's your proposal, you have to delete it. -

It is not mine, CD created it.
 * True... Sorry, I was just commenting based on the fact CD commented first and usually it's someone besides the Proposer who comments first... Plus it's late and I'm tired... -
 * It's ok. i'm tired too. Ah forget it. I'm just going to remove my vote. i will probably wake up in the morning and realize that everybody else was right. Anywho, sorry for any flaming I could have almost started.

Just to be clear, is this only for Bob Hoskins? Because Princess_Toadstool_for_President has the word "fuck" in it, and it'd be nice to have it set in stone somewhere what happens when this inevitably comes up again.

Per twenty of two seven, walka please look at his points then tell me if we shouldn't have the word "fuck" in the Bob Hoskins article.--Clear Discoherency 01:03, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

The deadline is up now anyway too bad we havn't reached a verdict besides walka's answer
 * That's because the deadline was off. Proposals are supposed to be up for exactly one week. This hasn't even lasted a day. Anyway, it's been fixed. &mdash;

Well, it's 4-0 against censorship, which is a pretty clear verdict. But, if it only applies to Bob Hoskins, then that's not so much of an accomplishment of policy making. Now, I'm not sure why exactly there would be a need for a proposal so specific, but that's what the text seems to imply. After all, we can't really say "no lol it meant this," and expect it not to raise issues. Or, at least, I see it that way. 01:24, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

"walka" is me, right? Pertaining to 2257's example, "jävla" has to be included in order to properly explain Bowser's "Din jäv-" quotation, and if we have the Swedish swear, why not the English equivalent? Still, like the Bob Hoskins quote, I suppose it would be possible to just leave the whole Trivia point as this, and still cover all the bases: In the Swedish dub, when Bowser gets smacked by the kid, he says "Din jäv-", but stops himself, as the word he was about to utter is a profanity. This can be compared to a truncated "F-" exclamation in English. Personally, I think the whole "jävla" exposition is interesting, but it's not essential, so I can see why removing it (and the full Bob Hoskins quote) is a reasonable compromise in the face of these sort of heated debate. "Fuck" is simply not worth the trouble. -


 * My point is that this might will come up again in the future, so it would be nice to have an actual policy about it. Rather than arguing about it later, we could get it over with and use this as a policy for when censorship debates rise up again. And there's actually other pages with profanity, that was just an example. 02:02, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
 * We need a lot more official policies around here... I think the standing unofficial policy on profanity is that "We're an encyclopedia, and as such, we do not censor our articles. However, users are asked to use their discretion when dealing with profanity on the Wiki mainspace." We could easily add some sort of rule along those lines to a policy page somewhere, maybe with links to any text previously written about flaming and vandalism, so that people will know the difference between using curse words academically and using them in an unacceptable, vulgar manner. -

Couldnt we just replace the word with F*** or sonething along those lines? This has been blown out of proportion.

No Signature Policy on FA Pages
OK, I'm pretty nervous, this is my first proposal and I have no idea how to do it. I've asked Walkazo and I think she explained it well so bear with me. I think that the proposals for featured articles and proposals to unfeature articles are very good and put power even in the hands of the users and for this, I commend whoever helped make it. The only problem with this system (according to me) is the fact that those pages do not observe the no-signature policy. When I look at the nomination for Luigi, I see a giant mess of names and pictures which really distracts me from the point of the page. If we could just add the rule that the page follows the no-signature policy then we could follow some of the most important parts of the wiki, without getting a headache. I know this may inconvenience several users but you can show your signature off on almost every single page on the wiki! Why does it have to be on an FA page.

The pages for Featured Image, Featured Poll and even this page follow that policy, so why shouldn't the Featured Article be like the Featured Image or the Featured Poll?

Thank you and I hope you consider my proposal carefully before voting.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, 15 July 2009 (EDT).

Support

 * 1) Well, it is my proposal, do I have to rewrite what I said here? P.S. Thanks SMB!
 * 2) Why would I oppose? I like the idea... And what do you mean too much work? In fact, to prove you wrong, I would like to offer at least a little help in this project.
 * 3) Makes sense to me. Per all.

Comments
Basically to sum this up, read the title, it says everything.

If this proposal passes successfully, please do not edit all the signatures on the existing FA nomination pages, because that would manipulate the date of the last edit, and this date is important (nominations that haven't been edited in a month are deleted).