MarioWiki:Proposals talk archive 1

Someone propose the chat be moved. Por favor. I don't think it even needs a vote, so I won't put it there.
 * I'm a bit undecided if I should leave it up to the community. I will consider it though. 23:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT) EDIT: You're a sysop. You can bring it up. 23:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

What is this exactly?

Splitting
Shouldn't we perhaps move this page to subpages? The edit glitch problem is starting to happen again. 13:57, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Anyone? 16:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Agree.

Gofer

Go ahead and do such splitting. I don't what type of page is this.(Super F22 Pilot 05:00, 22 November 2007 (EST))

Complete Rehaul
Expect a complete rehaul of this page and archives WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS by me – sub-pages of this & archive page. It's next on my to-do list after a couple of new MarioWiki pages. 20:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
 * No way, that would make things hard to find if you make a sub-page for every proposal or category. 23:29, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Question
I made the "It's not just america" section,and I want to know, did I set it out right? And about the deadline, is it just the time the section was made plus "EDT"? I don't understand that part... Davidk92

Archives
We need to do something about the super big archive page. It's getting harder and harder to load, so I can't even archive was I just removed from this page. -- Son of Suns
 * Simply make a second archive. The simplist explanation is almost always the corret answer.
 * Should we archive 20 at a time like we do with the Main Page Talk? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:20, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually, screw it. I'll move everything now. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:20, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Done. Not perfect, but it's done. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking, a better way to lower load times would be to thin out the archives. How, you might ask. Simple, each section would have it's own archive. IE: Merges & Splits has it's own archive, right? Well, New Features would get the same treatment, as would all other sections. Yes, this will increase the number of archives, but it will drastically cut down the load times for everyone. In fact, I might just make this a proposal. -- Chris 01:52, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, this isn't such a hot idea. It would create more work that needed. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 02:01, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Didn't I start a proposal?
 * Wayoshi deleted it. Not sure if this is okay. 15:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)

>=O

Old proposals coming up again
Seriously, a lot of these proposals are on a previous subject. We should do something about it. MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 * It is annoying, but the most we can really do is point out that the proposal's already been done. Odds are the votes will turn out the same, or the person who proposed the idea again might just take it off, but we can't make them as far as I know. Besdies, things change over time, and I remember at least once instance where a proposal that passed was revoked the second time around because people looked at it again and thought of it a different way and realized it really wasn't really an idea that would fly. - Walkazo
 * A time limit could always be put in place. Say, a particular topic may not be brought up again until 60 days have past since it's last proposal. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:03, 16 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'd support a proposal for that if you made it. 01:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
 * Perhap we could also have a list of proposal idea that passed/failed (and perhap the reasons why said proposals passed/failed) on the proposal page to indicate if it has already have been brought up. That way, perhap we could prevent something like the Improvement Drive from being brought up, accepted and turn out to be a simillar flop. --Blitzwing 06:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)
 * Good idea, it'd be like a shorter, easier to load version of the Proposal Archives. But that list is gonna be pretty big, so we should probably have it on a seperate page from Proposals. - Walkazo
 * Yeah, of course. I think this page (If it ever get created) should be organised in a table. --Blitzwing 17:12, 17 January 2008 (EST)
 * Or we could just say, at the top of the page, to check the archives before making a proposal. MarioGalaxy2433g5 16:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)

The thing is, there are tonnes of archived proposals and most people will not have the patience to look through them all. Plus some of us have old cruddy computers that can't handle the massive amounts of data in those archives or take forever to load the pages. - Walkazo


 * It isn't my fault that some of you have images in your sigs which significantly increases the loading. MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:28, 28 January 2008 (EST)

"Per"
I have a question, and this might make me sound not smart, but remember, I'm new here. What does it mean exactly when you say "per" all the time? I mean, by now, I've figured out that it means "I agree with this person." But why, and how did everyone here learn what it means? Everyone's always like, "Per this user. Per that user." And I'm wondering, "Is that a real thing that people say, or is it Mario Wiki slang? If you think I'm silly because I don't know this, just remember that I'm new here and I don't know many of these terms that people use. Could someone just answer the question? Orangeyoshi 20:33, 21 January 2008 (EST)
 * I just moved this so that it would get more traffic. I don't know personally.  If it is MarioWiki slang I should put it in the glossary.  21:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
 * It's not MarioWiki slang (see definition 4). 01:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Ah. Thanks for helping me out. But why does everyone on MarioWiki use it? I didn't know what it means before Time Q showed me a dictionary entry. Before I was a user, did everyone on MarioWiki get together and say, "You know what? Let's say "Per" all the time when we're voting in proposals.", or what? (Just so you know, I wasn't serious.") Orangeyoshi 20:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well, it's way faster than saying "I agree..." and I'm sure a few users have heard it used in real life (like me) or on other Wikis or polls or whatever, and decided to incorporate it here to save time, then everyone started copying them. But I dunno for sure; I've only been here a few months. - Walkazo


 * You're probably right. That's good enough for me. Orangeyoshi 18:55, 23 January 2008 (EST)

More rules
I believe we need two more rules for the proposals page. First, something that appears to be pretty obvious to me but the guidelines don't mention it yet: Every vote must be signed in order to count. (Currently, there's an unsigned vote by Fly Guy 2 on the proposal about Bob Hoskin's quote - I'm not suggesting the rule so his vote will be removed, I'm suggesting it to prevent this in future.) Second, there should be a deadline after which it won't be allowed anymore to edit the wording of a proposal - say, 3 days before the actual deadline. This is to prevent that users who don't visit the wiki very often have no chance to change their minds when a proposal's subject is modified (or when there are new voting options added - yeah, the Bob Hoskins proposal inspired me to that too :P). What do you think about this? Or should I start a proposal about it? ;) 14:50, 9 February 2008 (EST)
 * Signing your votes sorta seems like one of those "well duh" things and I just assumed it was already a bonafied rule... But if it's not we should definitely make it one. But maybe we should be a bit less lenient about editing the proposal. Things like fixing grammar are fine, but if anyone wants to actually change the proposal they should just pitch the idea in the Comments section, and if anyone agrees with that change they can just vote Yes but also say something like "as long as User's idea is enacted." That way, the people who voted for the original proposal and never came back are still voting for the same thing (since it's always possible they only agree with the original idea, and not the updated one - it's like twisting someone's words and meaning, it's just not right). Also, if it's a major enough change, another section can always be added; if any of the original votes say something like "yes we can remove the quote, but I'd rather it be censored with f---" (to use a recent example) then whoever is mediating the proposal (or someone else) can move that vote accordingly (but keep the wording the same so you can tell where it originally was from). Long story short, I think saying "no more rewrites, period" or "only in the first 48 hours" is better than "not during the last 3 days". -
 * Yeah, you're right, the changing crap was stupid. *Hits head* It should be a rule.

Problem
Am I the only one who gets an error when trying to view this page? Everytime I try to view it, a problem occurs, closing the page, and stopping me from viewing it. I'm not sure if anyone else has this problem, but its prooving fairly difficult for me to argue a Proposal. If the problem isn't just my Computer, then, can someone please try to figure out what is wrong with this page, and fix it.
 * It works for me. Clear your browser's cache (Ctrl+Shift+Del for Mozilla) and then try to load it again. - 07:28, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Making them?
How do I do it?


 * It is NOT editing Template:Proposal. Read the steps on this page carefully. 23:35, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, sorry to say this, but you made it the wrong way. I wouldn't really know how to make one either, but all the proposals I've seen list the proposer and deadline, and have a "support", "oppose", and "comments" section. And maybe you should explain your idea more, I don't really get it. 07:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Me neither. Most characters' pages already have such quote sections. Please explain your proposal a bit further. 07:41, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
 * And sign it, put the deadline, and make Voting and Comments sections. 08:55, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Another Error...
Huh? The page keeps giving my Computer an error everytime I try to load it... AGAIN! I checked the file history, and browsed through all edits in the last three days, and it didn't mess up until this edit. Strangely, when I skipped that edit, and moved on to the following edit, it was working fine, til' I attempted to view Time Q's following edit, in which it bugged up again... Uh, that sounded kinda stupid. But it's true. I think it has something to do with PY's sig, but I'm not sure. Can anyone give me an explanation or a solution? :\
 * All the pages you linked to worked for me. The problem must be on your end. - 10:42, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

...Ugh... I guess I'm the only one with the problem. Blitzwing says the problem comes from someone's sig, and I have reason to believe it's PY's, but that doesn't explain how two of her edits were fine for me, but the one between them gave me an error. My Computer must be getting old. -_-' I guess I won't be able to vote for a while. D:

I was discussing this error with Stumpers, and he agreed with me that we shouldn't allow "special sigs" on the Proposals page. They cause errors for some people, and according to Stumpers, they prove as a hastle in archives. Since I can't, ya know, propose anything (and a proposal on something like this is stupid), I ask that rather than signing sigs, people merely sign their name. Like this -> Pokemon DP.
 * The problem with the sigs in the archieve is that they can cause computers to get sluggish when there are, say, 10+ proposals on a page for, say... 100-300 sigs. I don't have any specific numbers on my side, but if someone want me too I could check out the archieve again.  Anyway, this was coming up a while ago that users who have slow computers don't check archieves because they're so hard to see.  01:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Is there any kind of shortcut to put only the name instead of the sig? I always put (~), which is converted into my sig. I don't think it's very attractive to put the whole xyz code everytime you sign a comment. 06:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure there's a shortcut to signing your name in that style. Not sure, though.
 * You can use for it. I agree we could make this page more formally and easier to load and stop these annoying line breaks because of problems in people's sigs when we use that way. -  12:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm all for that idea. We could just add it as a rule at the top of the page. 12:23, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, if we're gonna go along with the idea, can we do it really soon? I'm eager to vote! D:
 * Do we even need a proposal to do that? Since it's an answer to a technical problem I don't think it's democratic for people to not be able to vote or view past votes because people desire to use a signature...  23:26, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah... So, what's the final decision? :|
 * I don't think we need a proposal, everyone here seems to agree that it's best to not use signatures, so let's lay down the rule. 05:17, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, perfect. I'd do it, but... Ya know, I can't visit the page right now cuz of said problem. X|
 * I added a note to the rules, feel free to edit it. So, uh, what to do with the current signatures? Should we convert them all to the thing?  07:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

...Uhhhhh... Lol. This is funny. Dude, I Can't visit the page BECAUSE the sigs are there. Unless someone else removes them, I am still unable to visit the page. xP
 * LOL. I didn't talk specifically to you when I said "feel free to edit it", but of course you're right, someone should remove the sigs so you can visit the page again, haha. I'll start right now. 08:04, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Yay! Thanks! :D If the page still messes up after the sigs are removed, I'm killing myself. o_o
 * So... does it work now? 08:34, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

OMGWTF?! IT STILL DOESN'T WORK! ...Just kidding! :P It works perfectly now! :D - Pokemon DP
 * It definitely looks a lot neater now. Good idea. ;) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks! 00:40, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

But now no one knows what time someone made a comment. Uh, is that a problem? 13:41, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
 * It will always be in the page's history if a dispute comes up, and I don't believe it ever has yet, especially with the precident that a proposal cannot be majorly changed after submission. 18:29, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Lots of people (myself included) don't include the time anyway... - Walkazo
 * I'd like to note that by adding 5 "~"s (that's ), it adds solely the time stamp to your statement. That might come in handy for those of you who commonly place times stamps in your signature.  19:52, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Repeal?
Are we allowed to make a proposal to repeal a proposal?
 * Hmm, that might be a good idea. Courts allow repeals against certain verdicts; I don't see why that shouldn't apply here. 19:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * It happened before, so yes, it's possible. --Blitzwing 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * You'd have to wait four (?) months after the proposal, though, because of that new rule about no proposal replicating another proposal... hypothetically anyway. I suppose it depends on which proposal we're talking about.  20:32, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Erm, there's no rule about that. I only added the "No Banjo & Conker" notice because:

1: The proposal gets brought up every two weeks, (Infact, before I added the notice, Plumber talked about creating a Banjo & Conker proposal right after a proposal for it got removed.)

2: The result is alway the same: No article for these two.

3: IT'S BLOODY ANNOYING.

Otherwise, there's no rule about replicating a proposal :).
 * Thank you. :D
 * I just hope we won't get stuck going around in a circle over this FA voting-reworking thing... - Walkazo

Removed Votes
I don't understand why votes are removed. Even if they are fan/biased votes, a vote is a vote. Like I've said before, a fan vote has just as much value as a per vote. So why are we picking through vote reasons and removing them based on "not a strong enough reason"? I understand people can re-vote after a vote has been removed, but what if you aren't active between the period your vote was removed and the proposal ended? 16:54, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * IIRC, your "reason" was something like "As long as it doesn't get overused" - that's not a reason but a condition on which you support the proposal. This doesn't work; either you support the proposal in it's full form or you don't. I can see your point that it might be a problem if votes are removed and the users are not notified - but it's one of the rules that any vote must have a strong reason, so I don't think it's unfair to remove votes which break a rule. 17:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Also, the 'a vote is a vote' argument doesn't really hold water. All voting systems have rules in play to prevent abuse and to assure that most of the people voting know what they are voting on. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:44, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "Like I've said before, a fan vote has just as much value as a per vote." I'm curious about this one. How is supporting another user's opinion on the same level as supporting a fictional subject?  23:39, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I thought that statement was a bit off too. - Walkazo

Hmm... yeah, I understand. 15:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Article Moves
I was wondering if a proposal could be made to move an article (for example, Cyan Yoshi to "Light Blue Yoshi")? If so, which section of the page would it go under?
 * I don't think an actual proposal is needed for this. Why not make a "pseudo-proposal" on the Cyan Yoshi talk page? If there's no agreement, it can still be made an "official" proposal. (I would put it in the "Changes" section.) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I opened the topic on the talk page, so far there are just two of us talking about it, and he/she is also supporting it. 18:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You could also put on the talk page, trying to call attention to it (although often it doesn't quite seem to have the desired effect :/). If there are no objections, I think it's fine to move the article, no matter how many people actually voted.  19:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the advice! I'll be sure to keep the pages on my watch list in case anyone objects.  21:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Template Inside Scrollbox?
When archiving Walkazo's Fire and Ice template proposal, I noticed that it doesn't seem to be possible to put a template (Soler put a template as an example on the proposals page) inside the scrollbox. So when I archived it, I put  after the template syntax. Is there a way to show the template inside the scrollbox? 09:09, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think so. Templates shouldn't really be put on the page either, just linked to. - 09:29, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, but what should we do in this case? 09:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Well.... Maybe we could cut/paste the coding on the page of the template and put it instead of  . --Blitzwing 12:15, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

new proposal
how do make one? can I have a step by step dont wanna get it wrong...
 * It's easiest to simply copy another proposal, and replace it with your text. So, go to the Proposals page, click "edit", and choose a proposal to copy. Select the appropriate section (depends on what your proposal is about: Splits & Merges, Changes, Removals, etc.) and paste it there (if there already is a proposal in the section, paste it below). Now, change the header and the actual proposal text, and be sure to replace the Proposer and Deadline lines. How to add the correct deadline is explained at the top of the Proposals page. Remove the Support, Oppose and Comments sections, leaving just the headers, and then it's done, I think. 06:03, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Signature Tech Issue?
Can someone tell me what exactly is wrong with putting sig templates on this page? They worked completely fine at the beginning. 14:02, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Some sigs mess up the numbering of lists. Which is why I'm trying to make people use the user template on FA nomination articles as well.
 * That isn't the only reason. As seen before this "policy" was put up, a lot of sigs were used. Due to this, it gave some users' computers problems, such as Pokemon DP's computer. --Palkia47 14:25, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The numbering problem is from incorrect tag(s), usually forgetting to put . I have no idea how "too many sigs" can cause even a weak comp to crash. 14:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The "too many sigs" problem can be seen a few headers above. --Palkia47 14:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The images in the signatures are what give the old computers grief, especially when it comes to viewing the archives. Also, the backgrounds have a nasty habit of streaking and obscuring text further down the page (on my machine, at any rate). - 15:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Per votes
This is something that's been bugging me for a while now. Many votes are simply "Per X" and nothing more. While I don't know how all this "per" nonsense got started, it needs to stop, at least with those users whose vote consists of "Per X". It doesn't add anything and only serves to provide one more vote to overcome when actual reasons could be given instead.

By the by, "per" is nothing new. I remember using it in an edit summary as early as 2006. However, I've only rarely used it since then and only when its use is necessary. I know it's a lot to say about a simple three-letter word, but I'm seeing it everywhere on the Proposals page and it's irritating me. Stop saying it if you don't have anything to add. 15:00, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * There was a proposal to get rid of Per Votes. It failed miserably.

The reason? "Per" mean you agree with someone and you have nothing to add. I'd rather see a bunch of three-letter support than redundant votes that takes up space merely to say the Exact same thing. --Blitzwing 17:14, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * I'm not trying to be funny when I say this, but...per Blitz. 19:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * I agree with Blitz.
 * Me three! There just three letters. (Is this turning into a proposal?)


 * I do see your point, Phoenix; there's a lot of one-off voters who just put "Per X" in order to make their votes count. It may seem unfair that their quick votes count just as much as those by users who are actually concerned about an issue, comment on it etc. But what do you want to do about it? Ban the phrase? Soon another one would be found. It won't help. Plus, it's indeed a very useful phrase if you agree with someone completely. 11:07, 14 November 2008 (EST)
 * "In accordance with the assertions of TimeQ"... just one example. It's one of those things that I wouldn't mind if it stopped, but stopping it would nearly be impossible.  14:00, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I also agree with Blitzwing's assertion that "Per X" is better than the redundant rehashing of the same ideas; he put it better than I could have, and that's often the case with proposals. It's not necessarily the "Per"-er's fault they don't have anything to add: if they got there first, they would have been the one writing the speech and being "Per"ed, but they weren't. Unfortunately, there's no fair way to separate them from the "one-off" voters, and it looks like the stigma and the phrase will remain for quite a while. - 20:48, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Proposal deletes
Why was the super mario wiki in various languages proposal deleted?
 * Only Steve (the founder) can make that sort of monumental decision for the Wiki; it's not up to us. - 19:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I have a proposal. We should add 10 users to the administrator rank, therefore the wiki gets more protection against vandalism.MT Televisa Plk 16:12, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * We have 12 sysops, 5 bureaucrats and 2 patrollers, but no "administrators" (Because the rank doesn't exist, durrrrrr), we have a lot more than what we need. --Blitzwing 18:01, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * One patroller, Blitzwing I gave up the rank.
 * Blitzwing: administrators is a Wikia rank. It's basically a sysop.  19:52, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I think "Administrator" can also be used as a blanket term for Stewards, 'Crats, Sysops and Patrollers (anything that's not a User). - 20:16, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * Indeed. And besides, the small amount of vandalism we do get is always controlled by the, er, "Administrators." Besides, the Bureaucrats decide Adminship anyway, so a proposal wouldn't do anthing.

Ending Coding
How does the code & n b s p ; (without the spaces between the characters) work? It was on the bottom of the page for the longest time, and got accidentally removed a couple months ago without being missed. Today I noticed that the new proposal's "Comments" header wasn't working: it showed up as a proper header in the preview, but once I saved, it appeared as ====Comments==== on the main page (though it acted like a normal header in that it didn't appear as part of the "Oppose" sub-header when it was edited). Once I put the code back on the bottom of page, it worked fine. What gives? Is it just to give the bottom section some sort of content so the header works? Also, why doesn't  work on it? - 21:18, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * Aw, crap, I put my comment in that section... Should I put it above the little slippery code or below it? And I'm also curious about Walkazo's question...
 * Put it above the code, with a line skip or two in between (so it doesn't get archived by mistake again). Actually, that brought me to another point (which I was gonna save until after my questions were answered, but now's as good a time as any): there should be an actual rule advising people to comment above the code and to make sure it doesn't get removed by mistake. - 21:31, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * &nbsp; creates a non breaking space, which is basically just a regular space, but it won't automatically become a line break if a word runs over the end of a line. Instead, the last "normal" space on the line is used.  It's actually not a wiki thing, as evidenced by the fact that   doesn't work.  I think it was invented to make French quotation marks work right, but don't quote me on that.  23:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Y WOZ MY PROPASAL DELETED???!!!
? Lu-igi board 10:17, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

If you're talking about the proposal made for using North American region names, it is because there was a proposal to use PAL names that passed not a long time ago. Yoshario'''

Oh, I'm sorry that was Yoshikart's proposal. What proposal are you talking about? Yoshario'''


 * I believe Lu-igi board is talking about a deleting repeated polls proposal. The proposal was removed because that is already one of the rules, so any user can remove repeated polls as needed. --

really? oh wow! thanks 4 letting me no :) Lu-igi board 15:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Remove Tucayo's Vote from "Change 60-Day Rule to One Month" Proposal
"The last proposal wasnt more than 60 days ago, so it cant be reversed"
 * This is the reason for Tucayo's vote. But it has been proven wrong. Here is a quote from the comments section directed towards another user who had the same thoughts as Tucayo.

"Super Mario Bros. is actually correct. This proposal would not overturn the previous proposal, and thus it should be allowed. The previous (unstated) rule was actually any proposal could immediately be overturned at any time. The current rule is to wait sixty days to overturn or reverse a decision. This proposal would clearly not reverse the decision of the original proposal back to zero waiting time, so it is within the rules."
 * '''This is the quote. It was made by Son of Suns. It is quite clear that Tucayo's vote was cast in bad faith, so shouldn't it be deleted His vote does not have a good reason with it, he says the proposal is against the rules when it isn't, and is that a good reason to oppose it? Tucayo never stated any other reasons why he opposes the proposal, so that is why he should add a better reason to his vote or remove it.

If you think it should, go to my proposal and vote to remove it. Thank you.''' ?

Cast in bad faith? I think it's more likely that he just misunderstood the 60 day proposal. 16:31, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Now do you get what I mean (Look Above)? Ok, I guess you're right

Yes, sorry, I misunderstood it, i'll erase my vote

'''Nevermind, it is ok, you can keep your vote, as you have a good voting record any way. I also think that it was wrong of me to go pestering you and being a tyrant. That alone forced my conscience to let your vote count.'''

Clear Majority Rule
Since the Clear Majority Rule (number 11 on the list) is a little elaborate, here's a bit more exposition to make it absolutely clear what the new policy entails.

If a proposal has more than ten (10) votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three (3) votes (ex. 14-11). If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two (2) or less votes (ex. 14-12) or if there is a tie, the deadline will be extended for another week. If a clear majority is still not reached by that point, the deadline will be extended again; however, the proposer is encouraged to remove the current proposal and rethink it (i.e. decide on any possible compromises), so as to better accommodate the needs of the community. As the proposal did not pass or fail, the revised version can be re-pitched at any time (with no mandatory 28-day waiting period).

The point of this rule is so that large, controversial changes cannot be made without the clear support of the community; this ensures that more users will be content with the latest policies, and lessens the possibility of proposals being brought up multiple times (and alternating passing or failing), thus necessitating lots of work but yielding little progress. - 17:40, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

What happened to the page?
for some reason, the proposals page went back to an earlier version, changeing various edits by me and other people. -
 * Not just this page. It seems that all edits made on April 27 have disappeared (that goes at least for my account). --Grandy02 14:15, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Someone hacked my account yesterday. They wiped out almost all of the forums. So, when Steve returned, he set the server back by 24 hours. All changes on the wiki and forum were reverted and erased. 14:17, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

New Rule
The new rule is: "If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental (harmful) to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time." It may sound tyrannical at first, but it is only meant as a last resort to stop proposals the Sysops feel would not be beneficial to the Wiki should they pass. If a problematic proposal appears, we'll take it to the Sysop boards on the MarioWiki Forum and discuss it amongst ourselves. In order to give the community a chance to speak for itself, we will not veto a proposal until there is no hope of it failing through the normal voting procedure. This, of course, only applies to valid proposals: anything in violation of the Wiki's rules and regulations can be deleted by any Sysop at any time. Vetoing proposals requires the approval of the majority of the Sysops; however, the way the Sysops are voting here on the Proposals page should not be read as an indication of what we may be deciding behind the scenes on the Forums. In no way do the Sysops' votes hold more sway than those of regular users. Again, this rule is a last resort only, and we sincerely hope we will never have to use it. - 19:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

So we can just do it?
Wait, so if we have a proposal, can we just shoot it out onto the page as active to support/oppose? Or do we have to get some sort of approval first?
 * No approval, just make it

Edit Warring
Guys... Come on. Seriously, what I see inj the history for the Proposals page is saddening. All of those who participated in the edit warring– Marioguy1, Walkazo, and Edofenrir– know better. If there is an edit war, please take it to the talk page. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding the situation right now, and I apologize if I called out anyone who did not edit war, I'm doing this based on what I see in the history (so feel free to explain your motives or what ever). Now could we be civil and discuss the whole issue here?
 * You should probably get your sources right before lecturing anyone! I don't get where you see an edit war here! I merely updated my own vote, and Walkazo did her job and tried to clarify the situation! - 23:11, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * Well, tensions did get a little high back there, but everything's fine now. Thanks to Marioguy1's cooperation, the discussion has been taken to the Admin board, where the problematic Rule 4 is being dealt with as we speak. - 23:21, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry, thank you for telling me the status of the situation. 23:29, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * Hm... It seems like I carried some of the emotional heat over to here, so my comment sounds a little harsh. It shouldn't though, and I need to work on that. - 23:56, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Unused Images

 * I'm seeing a large number of unused images, and no one is around to delete them. I would make a Proposal regarding this, but I fear that it'll get rejected, just like how my featured image request got rejected. As of now, there are as many as 150 different unused images, and someone should really step up and delete them if he/she considers them to be unnecessary.  13:53, 8 December 2009 (EST)
 * Probably St00ben (if he's not necessarily busy), and I will try working on that. This is a bit more cluttering than its seems by so far. I'll do this after school. ;o 14:04, 8 December 2009 (EST)
 * Unused files are already mentioned on the Wiki Maintenance page. A full list of unused images can be found here. The Wiki Maintenance page calls for incorporating them into articles or tagging them with already, so I don't think a proposal is needed for that since unused images are already being taken care of either way, or at least should be.--vellidragon 14:05, 8 December 2009 (EST)
 * That's the thing. No one ever seems to add  tags onto the images that are no longer being used.  I guess that's because they're unsure about if they want to use the images again in the future.  15:32, 8 December 2009 (EST)


 * Or also perhaps they forgot them and left them alone and unused... If they don't use those images (specially personal images) then will be deleted after a period of time regardless if they had or not the deletion label.

It should be easy to figure out. Obviously delete the unused fan images, or even the ones that are used but could be confused for official ones... Unused images that obviously appear to have high quality or could be used in some way should remain, but at least searched around a bit for a place to put them. Redstar 15:55, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Bestiary Proposal
Okay, that proposal has been passed for five days now. Can we get an archive clean-up? Redstar 11:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)
 * Anyone can archive it, just follow the format from other proposals. -- 12:08, 10 December 2009 (EST)
 * I'd rather not. I'm not the proposer, and I'm not an admin, which are the only two types of people I'd trust with this kind of thing. I'll be sure to figure it out for my own, when the times comes. Redstar 12:12, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Boss Asects Merge Proposal
Umm. Okay? Who's playing dirty now? One day before, everyone decides to remove my entire proposal when it could have been done at the proper time? I made it perfectly clear that my proposal wasn't edited or revised or anything. This sickens me. Just because it actually looks like I'm going to pass, you have it removed. Redstar 21:06, 14 December 2009 (EST)
 * You had already broke twice the rules with that proposal. We had a consensus agreeing on this. Thanks and have a nice day. -- 21:23, 14 December 2009 (EST)
 * "Twice the rules"? What are you talking about? I removed examples, which had no bearing on the proposal, and no one raised a complaint until one day until closing-time and I was in the lead. The removed parts could have easily been asked to be re-added the same day, but for some reason it was waited until now... And what's the other supposed breaking of rules? Redstar 21:31, 14 December 2009 (EST)
 * Rule 10:"Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation.". IIRC you edited the proposal twice. This is no new rule. -- 21:41, 14 December 2009 (EST)
 * Once again, I never rewrote the proposal itself, only the examples included therein. The examples were never a part of the proposal, so were excluded from it. And, despite your claims, I never rewrote it "twice". Redstar 21:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)

"The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why." This part, followed by your "examples" disprove your claim. Examples have to be replacable, but the quoted line make them integral to the Proposal, as well as unexchangable. Simple as that, editing any of those after the 3 day span is voter deception and a solid violation of rule #10. As for the second violation, consider the abuse of rule #4. The reason this decision took so long is because the administrative staff likes to discuss things properly before taking actions rashly. There's no way to deny these violations have happened, so there's no further need of arguing. - 21:57, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Edo beat me, but anyway. Check the original proposal It had 8 entries, and it says "The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why. ": It says they are the only cases that will be merged, not that they are examples. Later, there were 2 edits of the proposal. this one and this one. -- 22:00, 14 December 2009 (EST)
 * @Edo: That list was nowhere near comprehensive, or definitive. I said they were "proposed", not that this proposal would be the last call on them. Note in many of my discussion in the Comments section other examples were brought up, but I didn't add them to the list or any such changes. They were examples, despite the literal reading. As for rule #4, it was not abused. That's your personal opinion. Just because I proposed votes to be given more appropriate rationale does not make me responsible for other people agreeing and voting likewise... In the end, I'll just have to re-add the proposal and be more specific with my words.
 * @Tucayo: From what I remember, your first example was done within the three-day limit and no one said anything about it then or since. Don't obfuscate what really happened. Redstar 22:06, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Second was, enough reason. End of the discussion.

Example proposal
Wouldn't it be helpful to new users if there were an example proposal near the top of the page(like the example image on Featured Images)? That way, people who don't understand how to make proposals can copy and paste it under the section that they want and add their idea for a proposal. That would seem like a helpful thing...
 * Can't they just copy and paste an already existing Proposal? I did so the first time I made one, it wasn't that hard... Let's see what the others say. - 16:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)
 * It does work if you just copy and paste it, but then you have to delete all the comments and votes and it gets confusing... at least for me. It would be easier with a blank proposal to be set up so you don't have to do all the deleting...
 * I agree with the laughing Fawful.
 * Ok, I think you do have a point there. - 10:33, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Just to be safe, should we make a proposal about it?
 * I think I read that a bit too late, I apologize. Will this be sufficient? - 11:11, 31 December 2009 (EST)


 * That's all right, but maybe you should add "How to support or oppose" instructions.
 * I added instructions on how to place a vote as well now. - 11:54, 31 December 2009 (EST)
 * I think it looks great now!
 * Ok. :3 - 12:00, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Talk Page Proposals
I found a possible flaw of our new Merge Proposal system. Look here. The Proposal decided that the page should be deleted, but that means the talk page has to go with it. The Proposal however, is on said talk page. By deleting this page, I'd destroy archive material documenting what originally led to this decision. Any suggestions? - 23:56, 15 January 2010 (EST)
 * I think TPPs should be about splits and merges only. This would solve that problem and almost any other one that would pop up.
 * Per MG1. 00:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 * Not really a flaw, since that proposal's intention was only to cover splits and merges. Deletions were never under the scope of that movement. Redstar 04:41, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 * Could there possibly be an archives page for those kinds of talkpage proposals?

Maybe the deleted article's talk page (and the proposal hosted there) can just be left in existence. One of the benefits of Talk Page Proposals is that the decisions made about a page will always be sitting on that page's talk page, as opposed to being buried within the general proposal archives. Someone who may want to re-create the Mario's Shirt page, for example, probably won't know to go digging through the proposal archives to make sure we didn't already create and destroy the article; they'll just see that we don't have the page and create it.

However, if they see we don't have the page but that we do have a discussion page saying why we don't, it will save them the trouble of writing a new article in vain. It's like how a redirect page created by a merge keeps its talk page, and really, I don't see much of a difference between merging and deleting single pages anyway. In both cases, relevant information is not being lost; it's simply more obvious in merges because any pertinent info us being moved directly onto another page, whereas with deletions, the info is spread out amongst many different articles.

I'm sure every piece of information on Mario's Shirt could be found elsewhere in the wiki even before the page was deleted, which is one of the main reasons single pages get the axe - they're superfluous from the start: they either do nothing but parrot information we already talk about elsewhere, concern info that we don't cover under our current standards, and/or are too short to be worthwhile anyway.

Every day, pages like these are created by well-meaning users and deleted by administrators using their more learned discretion; the only difference with something like Mario's Shirt is because it's been around on the wiki longer, has enough information to not be a stub, and is about Mario (if it were, for example, it'd get the ax without any song or dance). If the Mario's Shirt page had been expanded to discuss how we deal with clothing in general, it should have definitely gone on the proposals page because that means it's dealing with an overall coverage policy and thus effects multiple pages; as it was, it concerned one page, and I think it was appropriate to hold the discussion on that one talk page.

As for archiving Talk Page Proposals in general, Bloc Partier didn't address the issue when he proposed the new system, and I was never sure how to approach the matter myself, especially because there was talk of a new proposal archiving system at the same time that we were implementing the Talk Page Proposals. As a result, I left the archiving matter for another day (and then got extremely busy with school, preventing me from re-visiting the issue in a timely manner - sorry about that).

Now I'm thinking that the passed Talk Page Proposals should just be left on the talk pages (for the reasons I mentioned above concerning the Mario's Shirt proposal's resting place; for another example, see the current debate on Talk:Pauline's Items). Ideally, any past proposals dealing with single pages would also get moved to the appropriate talk pages to make things consistent. -
 * I fully agree with you. No user checks the proposal archives before they write articles. By keeping all the discussions over an article on its talk page, people get a much better overview and we can prevent recreations in the future. - 12:58, 11 February 2010 (EST)
 * @Walkazo, It's not just a debate, it's a proposal. The proposal is already 1-7, and might be increasing in number. Someone made a proposal.

My Proposal
On the main page please. The other one has been archived, and mine is an imortant decision. LucariosAura (used to be specialk) 10:49, 23 February 2010 (EST)
 * . It is unprotected. -- 15:30, 23 February 2010 (EST)
 * Thanks. LucariosAura (used to be specialk) 11:10, 25 February 2010 (EST)
 * No prob. -- 15:44, 25 February 2010 (EST)

What happened to the proposal page?
I am slightly confused. What happened to the proposal system while I was away? It appears to me like a new page to me. Rule 2 was completely rewritten, the clock that was usually found on this page has vanished without a trace, along with the part that tells you the right deadline times depending on the day of the week. A relatively simple process has become bulky and mazy. I know I'm one to get confused pretty easily, but I think this new complexity isn't too appealing to newcomers as well.

I would have expected this kind of experience if I had been away for several months, but I only was away for a little longer than a week probably. So, what happened here? - 18:11, 4 March 2010 (EST)

The only differences that I can think of is the new rule where you are not allowed to vote on a proposal until about 24 hours after it was posted. This allows users to discuss the proposal in the comments section before actually voting. There are also new FA rules.

Looks like I chose a bad time to go away. >_> Thanks for explaining. - 18:27, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Edo: There are three major differences, as far as I am concerned. One was by Cobold and two by me, IIRC. Cobold's suggested there be 24 hours between beginning voting on a proposal from the time it was proposed. The two I made were actually to simplify the process. Firstly, all wiki official times are now in GMT. This is for consistency and less confusion, as some pages on the wiki said EDT while others said EST. The other one I made was so that proposals ended at the end of the day one week after the day voting begins; previously, if the proposal was proposed on a Friday, it would end at 2:00 a.m. 9 days later, while on other days it was 11:00 p.m. 8 days later, which was just confusing, so now it's 11:59 p.m. 7 days from the beginning of voting, regardless of the day of the week. Sorry for the confusion it might have caused. --

Rule Number 5 (TPP)
We have this argument over rule number 5. (Brown Yoshi TTP is the best example) People have been extending the date for proposals that have less than a majority of 3 votes, following rule 8. I think so that we should get rid of rule 5.
 * Good call: there certainly is no point in a rule that no one follows, and the normal Rules 7 and 8 cover the issue just fine, I think... - 20:02, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

Slight confusion
Ok, I have a question about the most recent archived proposal, the one about splitting the SMA articles. So, from what I've heard in the comments of this proposal, we are going to create 9 new articles, including the three GBA remakes of the DKC games. However, that does not make sense, as the proposer only proposed to split the SMA articles:

"Ok, we seriously need to unmerge the 'Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World' and 'Super Mario World' articles, as well as the 'Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3' articles. First of all, there is plenty of room on this wiki to create a couple new articles to accommodate these SEPARATE games. Second of all, it creates the illusion (or disillusion) to Mario Wiki readers that these are the same games, just different ports.  They are NOT the same game!  Let's take the former, for instance.  The GBA ramake has more levels, updated graphics, play as Luigi, et cetera the list goes on and any honest person knows what it is.  The latter, among the updated graphics, how about all those new E-Reader levels?  They are not the same game and should not be merged together like that.  Why not merge 'Super Mario 64' and 'Super Mario 64 DS' together then?  The status quo with the GBA and NES/SNES games is just as stupid, if not more stupid. A remake isn't the same game. 'Super Mario Bros. Deluxe' is NOT 'Super Mario Bros.', people! It's NOT the real game! Third of all, tons of younger gamers who were were either pooping themselves or not ever born yet when the original games came out were introduced to the games through these remakes and they deserve articles to read about the games that they were introduced to. I'm not saying the GBA games were bad. I think they were brilliant. Putting nostalgia aside, in all honesty I think they are BETTER than the originals. But they are not the same games! They're different! They need their own articles!"

There is nothing here that talks about splitting the DKC games from their remakes. So basically, are we going to create 9 new articles or not?


 * They agreed in the comments to split all nine articles.
 * Shouldn't something like that be in a proposal, and not in the comments section. I know I don't agree to split them all!
 * They discussed it, and they're doing it. It's too late now.
 * Wait a minute, I looked through the comments section and nobody ever said that they were officially going to split the DKC articles. I did dig out this, though:

''Grandy, to answer your question, this proposal's passage will not affect any DKC games. There are not as many differences in those, I think they are more just handheld ports. However, if someone sometime in the future decided it would be best for the wiki that those DKC games get their own articles, I would read the proposal and all the arguments for and against in the comments section, and then ponder my decision, and then, based on which decision I feel is best for the wiki, vote based on that decision. But DKC games are irrelevant. Focus on the issue at hand. Just as SM64DS is different enough to merit its own article, so do these games, as you are aware from what are have said, differ even more rigorously.''

As you can see, the proposer said it will not affect any of the DKC articles.


 * The proposer originally said that, but later Marwikedor also accepted the other games ("These 9 new articles this proposal will create will be some of the wikis finest!"). Creating four new articles on remakes but ignoring the rest won't work. --Grandy02 10:26, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
 * But still: Only the points mentioned in the Proposal text itself need to be put into practice after the proposal passed. Everything else only mentioned in the comments section is more "informal". 10:28, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
 * So that means that we shouldn't split the DKC articles, right?
 * From my point of view, yes. That is, we are not "forced" by the proposal to split the DKC articles, but it's not the case that it bans us from doing it either. 05:50, 29 March 2010 (EDT)