MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png 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. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

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) 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.
 * 10) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 11) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 12) 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.
 * 13) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 16) 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.

Babies
Okay, so I was going through the Wiki, and I noticed that it said Baby Mario and Baby Luigi first appeared in The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. That’s false! They first appeared in Yoshi’s Island! A similar situation goes for babies Peach, Daisy and Bowser! I say we split the pages into Baby Mario and Baby Mario (SMB3 Cartoon), Baby Luigi and Baby Luigi (SMB3 Cartoon), Baby Peach and Baby Peach (SMBSS), Baby Daisy and Baby Daisy (movie), and Baby Bowser and Baby Bowser (cartoons). I hope that will clear things up.

Proposer: Deadline: June 7, 2009, 15:00

Support

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) Per above.
 * 3) Lu-igi board per above

Oppose

 * 1) I think is not necessary. According to the Mariowiki guidelines, we make the history (biography) of the character starting in his or her very first appeareance (in this case, SMB3 cartoon was in 1990, where the baby characters appeared first, and Yoshi's Island was in 1995, where they appeared later).
 * 2) Per coincollecter. We wouldn't split up Mario into two articles, so these characters aren't really different.
 * 3) Per Coincollector.
 * 4) Mario & Luigi Per Coincollector and my reasons below.
 * 5) - Per Coincollector.
 * 6) - Per CoinCollector.
 * 7) - I don't see this clearing anything up. It just creates additional pages where I see no need for them. What's the difference between a baby appearing in a cartoon and a baby appearing in a game? It's just overcomplicating things.
 * Per Coincollector. Rabidchomp, you don't even state why you think that the babies' first appearance was in YI rather than in the SMB3 cartoon. How can we support your idea then?

Comments
Erm... i'm 99% sure that the adventures of super maio bros 3 (which was a cartoon) was released long before Yoshis island, and therefore the babies were seen in the cartoon first. That being said, I don't quite understand this proposal. What is your reasoning behind splitting the pages? If it's just that you think that they were seen in Yoshis island first, than thats not a valid reason. The babies in smb3 are really the same as their yoshis island counterparts.

No, they're not! They are two totally different media (i.e. video games, cartoons, etc.), so I consider them different characters.
 * It does not matter whether they are different media, this is the Super Mario Wiki, not the Super Mario Wiki of Video Games and Not Other Media. In example, if regular Mario (not the baby characters that were referred to in the above proposal) appears in the video game and the cartoon, does that justify splitting that article because they are in different media? I personally don't think so. And it is true that Baby Mario first appeared in the Adventures of SMB3 and then Yoshi's Island. It doesn't matter whther their appearances were completely different, they still have the same concept of a character: a baby version of Mario (and this applies to all other baby characters). Mario & Luigi
 * Oops, I didn't see that luigifreak had already used the Mario example... Well, it is still a good example to make, anyway. Mario & Luigi (talk)

If RabidChomp was Steve, I'd see this happening. Mr.C

Changes
''None at the moment.

Eliminate Possible Loophole in 28-Day Rule
This may seem pointless, but I found a possible loophole in the way the 28-Day Rule is set up. It states that no proposal shall overturn the decision of another proposal, right? Well, if the proposer of a proposal sees that it is failing, they could very well delete it. This means that no official decision was made on it, as it did not make it to deadline. This means that the proposer can delete the proposal the day before the decision is made and relist it so that it will get more time. Although it has not happened yet, I realized that such a thing is possible and am proposing a rule before this possibly happens. What I am suggesting is:
 * A proposal that is at least 4 days old cannot be deleted by the proposer.
 * A proposal that is younger than 4 days old can be deleted, but cannot be relisted until 14 days later (due to the small amount of time the proposal has been up).

Also, in addition to the above stated, I will also suggest another rule here. If a proposal is at least 4 days old, you cannot edit the content (save for spelling or grammar). If it is 3 days old or less, then you can edit the content. This is to help prevent against users supporting or opposing the proposal from not being able to change their mind if they do not agree with the content. I thank those in the proposals talk page who created the idea a while ago, as I think it is a good one.

Proposer: Mario & Luigi (talk) Deadline: Saturday, 6 June 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) Mario & Luigi (talk) Per my reasons above.

Oppose

 * 1) - It's too much fuss over a loophole that will probably never be used, and which would only cause a mere irritation (hardly worth the effort of the proposed preventative measures) if it were.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo.

Comments
There isn't even a rule about deleting your own Proposals: it's based on common-sense. Sysops delete offensive, unnecessary (i.e. if the change can just be made right off the bat) and joke proposals; if someone decides they don't support their own proposal after a while, they say so, and the proposal is deleted. If someone deletes their own proposal because it's losing, they'll be caught, either right then and there, or later when they try to do the proposal again. We don't need rules for every little thing; it's better to just get the biggies up there on the list, and use good judgement for everything else. -
 * I know, but the person who deletes their proposal can use that their is no rule to prevent it, and even though they would probably lose their argument, they have still created a problem on the wiki. It could be an unstated rule, as the list above is a bit long, and this proposal can be used as a reference, if passed, to stop a person in the case this happens. Also, I added a part to the proposal. Mario & Luigi (talk)
 * If a proposal is failing the first time, deleting it and restarting it less than a month later probably won't change that. People will also resent that the proposer weaseled out of a failure, and be more vehement about voting against it the second time around. It's unlikely something like this would happen, and even if it did, it wouldn't be a big deal. -
 * Well, yes, that may be true, but the same can be said about the 28-day waiting period itself. It was not created because people would probably end up changing their minds over and over again (and even with that problem, the Majority Rule basically reduces the chances of that conflict). The rule now basically prevents a proposal being added over and over again and taking up room. This rule would basically do the same, prevent a repeated proposal from coming up a hundred times. Mario & Luigi (Talk)
 * I doubt anyone will be obsessed enough to remove and restart the same proposal a hundred times, and if they do, they'd probably get an earful about dodging the rules and spamming the Proposals page after a while. Like I said before, we can just use our common sense to deal with problems like that. -
 * Well, I know, but there are could end up another user like a Rudnikki or a Stooby (the bad one, not Stooben Rooben), who comes along and does spam the pages and does other bad deeds, so I think that is why we should make this rule. As I said before, it could be an unwritten rule, and if a user does do this, a Sysop or Bureaucrat or whomever can refer to it and inform the offender. And, just so I know, do you also oppose the "In addition" part? If not, I will create a Support/Oppose section specifically for that. BTW, I know you know this, but I literally did not mean a hundred times. Mario & Luigi (Talk)

Yes, Walkazo, this may not be a problem, but as I said earlier, we just got over Ruddnikki attacks and the real Stooben Rooben having his account hacked (if I am correct, on the forums, but I'm not sure what the whole thing was about). Maybe we should start worrying about some loopholes; we will never kill all of the loopholes, but if we come across a bad loophole (in this case, spamming), then we might as well stop the possible problem before it starts. It is not going to harm the wiki if it does pass, but the idea for the loophole has already been presented. We should support it because now that the idea is out, and the proposal fails, some Ruddnikki-like user can come along and start making proposals and deleting them and re-adding them, they could say that there is no rule against it (in fact, if they see the proposed rule failed, that would give them more leverage against their accusations, saying that a rule like this was not popular and very unsupported). All I am saying is, it would not hurt to have a rule like this in place, it would be more of a leg to stand on when trying to stop spam on the proposals page. Mario & Luigi (Talk)
 * "It's too much fuss over a loophole that will probably never be used, and which would only cause a mere irritation (hardly worth the effort of the proposed preventative measures) if it were." That is what your vote said. Number one, in the 'real world', many laws are made to patch up loopholes in many governments, I know we are not a country or anything like that, but this can help protect us from spam, which even if it is the most minor proposal, and it can help eliminate spam, then I'll support it (even if it requires a tiny bit of extra bit of effort). It also could have been thought that the beginnings of the Ruddnikki situation was going to be a mere irritation, but it ended up where (I think) 5-10 sock puppet accounts were made from this one person and the situation evolved from a 'mere irritation' to a huge fiasco. As I also said before, we should always put all we can into this wiki, and if it requires a few more rules and a little bit more of effort to protect one page, then we have improved the wiki. Even if it is one page we are saving, with a little more effort, it is worth it. Mario & Luigi (Talk)