MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Remove rule 4 of the talk page proposals
4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes.

...Why? Why are proposers given the right of closing their proposals based solely on the number of votes? What purpose does this serve when proposers already have the option of closing their proposal within the first six days? If a proposal hasn't received many votes, why is the solution to completely scrap it rather than try to promomte it? What situation would even exist that would require this rule to be invoked (less than five votes on all sides and more than six days have passed), and even then, why not let an admin close it if there's a valid reason for it? If there's no valid reason for closing the proposal, why let proposers close it at any moment they want? Why only five votes in the first place, and not some other arbitrary number? Why do talk page proposals even have a rule that isn't applied to regular proposals?

This rule is pointless in all circumstances and should be promptly scrapped.

Proposer: Deadline: October 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended: October 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended: October 28, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) So you want to remove it. Why haven't you? (it's basically rhetorical.) Per proposal.
 * 4) No reasoning was provided for why the rule was added, and it's pointless anyways (no one uses it), so per proposal.
 * 5) - As per general proposal rules, every proposer gets three days in which they may alter or remove proposals. That's already a sufficient window to realize if your proposal is sensible and you want to stick with it.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Ridiculous rule. Per all
 * 8) Per proposal.
 * 9) Per all, especially Toadette the Achiever and Gabumon.
 * 10) per
 * 11) I always found this rule very annoying.  Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I think it's better to give the proposer complete control over the proposal, and this rule does just that.
 * 2) - I don't really see a point to remove it. If there's too few votes, it's usually a no quorum anyhow, so rather than just feebly wait, the proposer might just say "forget it" and close it.
 * 3) I don't really see any actual benefit to this it seems like doing something just to do it.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all. There just doesn't seem to be a point to removing it. Maybe I want to put a proposal no one cares about out of its misery?
 * 6) When the proposal passes/fails, a month of waiting is needed between proposals (rule #7). That means 6 weeks of total waiting (if rule #10 doesn't apply). If the proposer has a right to withdraw with less than five votes, rule #7 can be skipped, meaning a refreshed proposal can happen within 0-6 weeks. This can allow tweaks and maybe allowing the proposal to be proposed at a better time where more people are active.
 * 7) Per all. It's entirely optional, if you don't like it, don't do it.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.

Comments
OK, can anyone tell me the difference between talk page proposals and regular proposals? I know that one type specializes in game-related information and that one type specializes in regular wiki-related stuff, but can anyone tell me which is which? I'd really like to know. 02:40, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Talk page proposals go on talk pages and usually only deal with a handful of pages or sometimes even just one page. Regular proposals go on this page and handle a broader amount of pages or other details that would directly affect policy. 11:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

@Lcross: Can you elaborate on what you mean by "complete control"? Would you allow a proposer to make major changes to their proposal the day that it ends? 11:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

@Camwood: Is there a point in keeping it around, then? And keep in mind that a proposal only needs four votes total to go into effect; in theory, a proposer could easily cancel a proposal simply because they don't like that a majority of users are voting for something that they don't want. That really doesn't seem fair to me. 12:01, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Usually, by the point they could cancel a proposal simply because people don't vote for something they want/people vote for something they don't want, they wouldn't be able to cancel the proposal by this since the consensus would be above that they could cancel the vote by. And if it were lower, there would still be a no quorum. Really, either way, not allowing this does nothing, and removing this just helps delay votes that have a pretty inevitable no quorum. And before you bring up the "isn't 4 possibly enough votes to pass but they can still cancel?", don't worry. However, I think that's an entire other debacle that I think would be more appropriately addressed in another vote after this one, if this vote to remove rule 4 fails and any purpose in doing so isn't rendered moot by rule 4 simply not existing.  ~Camwood777  (talk)  15:19, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * A proposal with 3 votes on one side and 4 votes on the other side would be subject to this rule, and that seems like an adequate amount of votes to reach a legitimate consensus. The rule's especially problematic with proposals that have multiple options, since that naturally thins out the number of votes. Also, who are you to say that a consensus is inevitable? New information can come in at any moment, which could easily lead to new votes or people switching their votes. At the very least, if the information comes in too late, the proposer can ask the admins to cancel it and they have a perfectly valid reason to do so. Cancelling proposals early just because you feel like it only stifles productive debate. In short, keeping this rule could easily cause more harm than good. 23:12, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

@TimeTurner: Thanks for the info. It was really helpful. As for "complete control", I'm saying that the proposer should be able to decide if he/she wants to remove it, and removing rule 4 would restrict them from doing that. If they realized immediately that the said action was done for a reason and that the proposal would go against the action, then they should remove the proposal. If you still don't understand, then do you remember my proposal about merging the Hot Monster article with the Red Monster article that completely failed? I thought they were the same thing, but I immediately learned they weren't. I decided to keep the proposal anyway, because I just wanted to see how it would turn out in the end. 16:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There's already a rule that allows you to cancel your proposal without a reason early on, especially with this recently passed proposal. If you learn "immediately" that your proposed change wasn't a good idea, then you're free to cancel it. 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

@Chester: The danger is that this rule could be used to cancel a proposal solely because the proposer doesn't like the outcome, and not because they had any sort of legitimate reason. If they did, they can inform an admin and close it that way. This is not the kind of power that needs to be given to proposers. Besides, spring cleaning is always good; why bog down the list with a pointless rule? 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

@Doc: What gives you the right to decide that nobody cares about your proposal? I'll reiterate that it only takes more than three votes for a proposal to pass, making it possible for you to cancel a proposal even if people are participating in it, but regardless, if nobody participates in your proposal and it ends in a no quorum, then the logical reason for that is because the proposed issue was too complex and wide-reaching or the proposal itself was confusing, and that's valuable information in and of itself. Besides, it's entirely possible to people to join in with new information at any point, and that could easily get the ball rolling. I'll also reiterate that it's possible for admins to close a proposal early if there's a valid reason for it; what are you doing, cancelling a proposal without a valid reason? 09:20, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The fact that it's been utterly ignored for 8-10 days? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Wildgoosespeeder: One, that rule doesn't apply to no quorum proposals, and two, the rule exists for a reason. What's the point of rule 7 if it's so easily circumvented? 00:32, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * No quorum proposals is 3 or less votes total (rule #8), or if the three extensions on top of the one/two weeks and no margin of three was reached by the end (rule #11). I think rule #7 was for protections involving very active participation, not for any proposal, even proposals with little voting activity. -- 16:13, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

@Chat Man: You called the rule optional. Rules are not something you can pick and choose from to follow. They are what you must try to follow as best as you can. I say that because we are all human. Sometimes we can't follow the rules. But in no wise it is optional. And if you don't like the rule, then why did you oppose? And you're perring other votes which have things you should read as well. Also, I am just trying to cover all points, but I will let you decide to change it or keep it the same. 21:54, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Make "Bestiary" its own namespace
Sure, we have a namespace for galleries, but I don't see why we can't do the same for bestiaries. It's the same kind of "special" article that I would define galleries as as well. Therefore, I propose that we rename every instance of  to.

Proposer: Deadline: October 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.  Why not?
 * 5) This is (similar to?) one of the things Zeldawiki does that I think we should too.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - For galleries it made sense because most major articles had one (there are currently 319); for bestiaries, I don't see the point at all. There are 12 proper bestiaries, I don't think this warrants a namespace by any means.
 * 2) Per Tucayo. I also don't see the benefit of this; it seems like more hassle then it's worth for little payoff when considering the few bestiaries on the page.

Comments

 * I might just be a bit dumb, but I don't fully understand what this means or what the difference is. Could you give an example?-- 12:15, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * For example, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary would become if this were to pass. -- 12:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I can only see one problem with this. On every enemy page where the enemy template is placed, transcluding its info from the bestiary page, they look like this:
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)


 * Could we keep the current names as redirects until all of the transclusions are fixed?
 * 14:05, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Ultimate Mr. L: Isn't that a standard measure? @Alex95: That was my exact plan for fixing those pages. 17:37, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Make a new, separate "delete" template for pages with unique talk pages
As it stands, our current delete template urges for the talk page to be deleted as well, presumably assuming that it's from a move redirect. However, in the case of merges or outright page deletions, this is a bad thing, as it could cause the loss of why those events occurred in the first place. I propose we make a new, separate one for such eventualities. "deletenottalk" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here.

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I would love to see a mock-up before I even consider supporting this.
 * 2) Per Wildgoose and Mr. L in the comments.
 * 3) - Per all.

Comments
I think we should add an option to the current template that removes that text, something like:  It may also be a good plan to delete that text altogether and just let the admins decide whether or not to delete the talk page. They know what they're doing. 14:42, 22 October 2017 (EDT)


 * This is exactly what I was thinking. 22:13, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

@Time Turner: Guess what? I don't know how to make templates, so I can't make an example! But it would be like the current one, but replacing the "Please delete any accompanying talk pages as well" with "please do not delete the accompanying talk page. And @Ultimate Mr. L, the solution is not "Make your current template convoluted." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Doc von Schmeltick: Yes it is. That's why one user merged with . (Well, you have to admit, it is a similar scenario.)  02:05, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * And it has confounded me multiple times, because it doesn't come with a use manual easy at hand, and I have to search for and hppefully find it within the nightmare that is our "templates" category for any direction at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.