MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
 * 3) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 4) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 5) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 6) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 7) 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.
 * 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) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 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) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 14) If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 15) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format
This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.] Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on anoother user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the heading.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3, 4, and 5, as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM."
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Dragon into and . (Discuss) Passed
 * Split Entei's info into Pokémon and . (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Pale Piranha into Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split from Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split from King Boo. (Discuss) Deadline: 23:59, 16 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Split from Bullet Bill. (Discuss) Deadline: April 16 2010, 24:00
 * Delete Template:Wikipedia. (Discuss) Deadline: April 17 2010, 24:00
 * Change Translation for Titile Yume Kojo: Doki Doki Panic. (Discuss) Deadline: April 17 2010 23:59
 * Merge Atomic Boo and Big Boo. (Discuss) Deadline: 23:59, 17 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Merge Gabon and Spike (enemy). (Discuss) Deadline: 23:59, 19 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Split from Baby Yoshi (Discuss) Deadline: April 21 2010, 24:00

Revising Nomination Process of Images
We had this situation with images several times, and that's ok because they are made by different users. But then, we had times where the same people nominate an image that failed dozens of times (eg Avalanche! image). I propose that within a 1 month time period, the nominator who nominated an image that failed should not nominate it again. Any nominator who violates this rule will get their nomination deleted. This will not flood the nomination page with people making the same complaints about it being featured again and again! This should not apply to other users nominating the image, because they may not know the image they nominated had been put down previously.

Proposer: Voting Starts: Monday, April 5, 23:17 Deadline: Monday, April 12, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Who likes to see a nomination that JUST failed be placed up again by the EXACT same user who nominated it previously?
 * 2) I am Zero! Not a bad idea.... alright I guess I'll go for it, you got my vote. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Per my comment.

Oppose

 * I just don't think this rule is necessary. See my comment below.
 * 1) Per Time Q and LGM's comment.

Comments
Hey, every time I nominated the Avalanche! picture there was a 1-2 month period of time between each nomination.
 * and I only nominated it twice.


 * No. It JUST failed and you happened to renominate it again. You should hear their complaints.


 * When???
 * I can't exactly give you proof or when, but ask the people who usually vote on the FI page. Well, let me get this straight: First, it was nominated by iforgotwho (no offense), then, you renominated it for a fresh start. Then, when it failed, you renominated it, saying "Great resolution: 4535 × 3000, depicts of the characters skiing through snow. (If you enlarge it, you can actually see the tracks made by Mario.)"

Raphaelraven398: Remember to place your vote back up when the voting period starts (I hate that when that happens to, but we gotta deal with it)

KS3: Before I deleted your vote, you mentioned some other picture. The thing is, the poor user who nominated it didn't know it was just put down. In this case, however, you happened to renominate the image JUST as it failed. It's just not right.
 * Blame it on Nintendo. If Nintendo didn't make that minigame this whole "argument" wouldn't exist.
 * Blame it on Nintendo? Without Nintendo this wiki wouldn't even exist. Anyways, I think we should extend that time where you can't re-nominate a failed image to at least one month or two.
 * I was thinking about a month, but I thought it would be too long. You made me reconsider this; I'll change it.

So what; after one month the picture is just going to appear again. The 1 month wait seems a little too short.
 * Think about how long and boring one month is. Why won't you say the rule of new users that can't create pages? They can wait to vandalize it as well.

I think this proposal is a good idea, just to point out. It might be hard to keep track of which nominations are going through because there are so many, but I can see this working with effort being put into it. Also, I'd like to suggest making the waiting time either 28 days or 56 days; both are intervals of 7 and are the closest to 1 month or two months (respectively) that are easy to track on a calendar. 00:21, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


 * We can do this. I'm pretty sure about that. Ok, I change the date once more.

So, if different people alternately nominate the same image constantly, it's alright? I feel it would just be too easy to exploit this system. However, we do need to try something different, so I don't want to vote against this.


 * Well, I had thought this issue, but few people deliberately team up and try to nominate images like that. But if just delete nominations because it was nominated already, it wouldn't be nice to the people who didn't know that. Besides, several images that got put down ended up getting featured, so we can't just make a no-renominating rule. Again, this isn't as major as vandalism, but it can be very annoying. We can probably make another rule where you can't repeatedly nominate the same images over and over even past expiration date.


 * I'm not saying that this WILL be prevented, but it will discourage silly nominations like the Avalanche image.


 * Okay, so what you're looking to do is stop frivolous nominations by the same person, not actually prevent the same image from being brought up again and again. I have a vauge idea for how a system could work, but I might need to review the actual process first. Your proposal would work for preventing silly nominations, I think, but I shudder to think who would be tasked with keeping track of them. I'll support it now that I know it's intent.


 * I can do it. I'm pretty good at keeping track of stuff and I'm super active on this wiki.

I don't know. This proposal seems somewhat unnecessary to me. I really don't know why people make such a fuss about the FIs. Why can't we just have a funny, little page where you can vote whether you like an image or not? Why set up more and more rules? If someone re-nominates an image that just failed, it will probably be voted down in the next week. What's the problem? Maybe it's just me, but we shouldn't ban something just because it's "annoying".

I don't think this proposal is necessary either. If an image is going go be renominated, chances are, it's just going to get put down again.

I know images nominated again will fail again. But we don't appreciate it. You should see the people's reactions to that page when it was nominated twice in a row.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Another No-Signature Policy Amendment
Alright, I think that we should make a tiny change to the No-Signature Policy that states that on voting pages that apply the policy; only the voting sections cannot contain signatures; and that users can sign with their signatures in the comments sections unless it is specified on the page specifically not to.

I'd like that to apply on this page as well.

Proposer: Voting Starts: 6 April 2010, 04:35 GMT Deadline: 13 April 2010, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It won't have an effect on the vote count, but it will be more efficient for the users.
 * 2) per proposal/SMB

Oppose

 * 1) - I'm sorry, but I believe a rule shouldn't include exceptions when they can be avoided. It's easier to say "Don't use signatures on this page" than it is to say "Don't use signatures there and there, but it's ok to use them there, there, and there. Oh, but not there.". Simple rules are better comprehensible to new users. On a side note: Less signatures make this page load faster, which is good for people with old computers. People with out-dated models might not be able to visit this page properly, because it already has a lot of traffic going on here, and signatures just put extra-stress on their computers. So, let's not resort to make in-page-exceptions. This will likely cause more confusion than it adds comfort.
 * Per Edo. Also per my comment below.
 * 1) - Per Edofenrir and Time Q (though with the new archiving system, it's not as big a problem as in the past). I quite like being able to view this page on my twelve-year-old computer - unlike most high-traffic user talk pages, or the talk pages of popular articles, which are often "load at your own risk". The only reason the TPPs' sigs haven't caused issues is because they're mostly held on small talk pages, so the images (and whatnot) don't add up as they would here.
 * 2) Per all. Also, if a new user for some reason didn't read that you could use sigs in comments, they might think: "Oh, if they're using signatures there, then I must be able to use them here!" and mess up the vote count.
 * 3) - I agree with Walkazo, the reason we forbid signatures is that pages that include many different sigs tage ages to load for people with an older computer or a bad internet connection. And even those with a better connection noticed this page loading a lot faster when the sigs were removed.
 * 4) Well, sigs can cause lag on older browsers and simple rules are better for new users, so it is illogical to have exceptions for sigs, or lag on the Super Mario Wiki.

Comments
Aren't some signatures pretty distracting and take up a lot of space (mine, for instance)?

(BTW, I had that idea earlier on, but I didn't make it into a proposal. What a pity...)


 * I don't really find that distractions will be a problem. They may take up a bit of space, but this proposal is more for efficiency for our users rather than making any major changes. Signatures were banned from this page because users couldn't bother to code their signatures correctly and it ruined the voting count. However, this solution allows users to save time when making comments, and it keeps the vote count safe from getting messed up. 00:49, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Oh, ok. I thought that would be a major issue.


 * Seems pretty flawless unless someone has an insanely huge pic in their sig, their sig is really long, or they have more than one image. It becomes a pain in the neck to continuously type, especially if you have a long name like BLOF for example or have symbols like ñ or è or others.


 * Actually, I don't mind typing but I like colorful signatures. I can always shorten my signature if you think it's too long.


 * I always seem to mess up by typing USer instead os User, which pisses me off sometimes. I agree with the proposal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the No-Signature Policy was introduced because some users couldn't view the proposals archives because of the sigs. If we allow sigs in comments, the old problem will be there again.

If this proposal doesn't pass, then why are users allowed to sign in the talk page proposals comments section?
 * I think because it's already a talk page and has them anyway but... it is rather silly and uneven.

Oh, I see that section on the Proposals talk page. It seems that Pokemon DP could not access the page to vote when signatures were put on. But, I'm just curious, how do signatures affect things here and not everywhere else? I assume that it must have been an issue with votes being signed with signatures. If it isn't, then there is a coding issue with signature and it should be fixed. As for the issue with big images and whatnot, I believe that there is a size limit for signatures with images, although I'm not exactly sure. 13:27, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.