MarioWiki talk:Proposals

Autoconfirmed
Does a user not have to be autoconfirmed to vote in a TPP? 27Burst27 (Talk) voted on my proposal, but he just joined today and therefore, is not autoconfirmed. (Also, I'm not sure his vote is valid). I was going to delete his vote, but I wanted to make sure first. 11:32, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Rule 2: Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in or vote on proposals. So, yes, only autoconfirmed users can vote on proposals.-- 11:35, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Curse you, Lugwig :P It's nice that they're willing to participate, but yeah, their vote is invalid. 11:37, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
 * I guess I lose a supporter. I'll go ahead and delete the vote and tell them on their Talk Page.
 * 11:38, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
 * I don't know if this rule applies to TPPs 17:40, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Rule 2 of TPPs: All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals [...] -- 07:09, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

Cancelling a Proposal
I made a proposal and within 12 hours it is being opposed very strongly, with 10 opposers and 2 supporters. How do I cancel this proposal? -YoshiFlutterJump (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
 * Just do it if rules allow it. Archive it by moving contents (cut and paste). Don't forget . -- 14:58, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
 * You can delete a proposal so long as it is within the first three days of its creation. Alternatively, you can ask an admin to do it for you, so long as you have a good reason to do so. Your proposal must also be archived as it is on the main proposals page. 15:14, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
 * I just archived it; did I do it correctly? -YoshiFlutterJump (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
 * You used the wrong outcome, but I corrected that. Otherwise, looks fine. 16:04, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
 * Also, you didn't give a short description of the proposal on Proposals/Archive, which TheFlameChomp did for you. 16:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

What are the sections for?
In all of my time here, I don't think I've ever completely understood what each section for proposals are for. Besides the Writing Guidelines section, which is well-defined per the proposal that created it, I have many questions regarding the way the page is divided. What is a "new feature"? What's the difference between a change and a removal? When should something go under miscellaneous? If I make a proposal that may or may not change a current yet minor standard, where should that go? 08:54, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Based on their names, "new feature" would refer to, well, a new feature that the proposer wants implemented into the Mario Wiki, like a new template or something. A "change" is adjusting one or more things to fit a certain requirement, and a "removal" is the outright deletion of something (though the two could probably be split, if that's what you're referring to). "Miscellaneous" is anything else. Your supposed proposal would likely go under "change". 21:50, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
 * So, we have sections for adding something brand new, changing something on the wiki, completely removing something, and literally everything else (also Writing Guidelines, but again setting that aside). Is it just me, or does the Changes section seem way too broad? All merges and splits would be slotted under it, as would editing the content of policy/help pages and much more. It seems like that overlaps too much with the miscellaneous section's purpose. For the record, the proposal I had in mind for the "minor standard" bit was the Mario's Time Machine proposal that I ended up slotting under Miscellaneous. 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Rule 8
Rule 8 states that any proposal with three votes or less meets "NO QUORUM". Does the proposer's vote(s) count? I'm asking for my proposal here. 22:12, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
 * The proposer's vote is treated like any other vote. In the Special Attack proposal's case, there are four votes, so it wouldn't be classified as a no quorum. 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Rule 7 (RP)
"No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." I think this should be changed to "No proposal can be created to overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.", so that it is clear what is meant by this statement (as a proposal can be created during that time, but ends after the 4 week limit as with what was decided with this). 23:15, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

The Comment Glitch
Everyone knows about the glitch where the comments section shows up as raw code instead of a header, right? Placing any sort of code under the header fixes the glitch. So should we add some sort of code underneath the header to the copy-and-paste template? 23:04, 20 November 2017 (EST)
 * I remember that Walkazo put this code:  on the bottom of the proposal page to fix it (also it still parses together despite me putting a nowiki tag....  00:12, 21 November 2017 (EST)

Conjectural in headers
This proposal is listed as a change that has not been implemented, but I can't find a single article with in a header. 22:08, 2 December 2017 (EST)
 * I think the idea is that the rule is not written down anywhere, though I cannot confirm that. (On a side note, you need to include  tags around the template so that the link works.)  22:09, 2 December 2017 (EST)


 * It is, actually. The exact wording is: To avoid unsightliness and problems with linking, headers themselves do not use the template, however the first line of each section should repeat the name in boldface and using, in the form:   I see no reason why that proposal should be there. I'm going to go ahead and take it down.
 * 22:12, 2 December 2017 (EST)
 * Fair enough. The archive must not have been updated, then. 22:14, 2 December 2017 (EST)

HELP ME!!!
How to create a new proposal??? Where??? please let me the link where you can create a new proposal just on mariowiki:proposals???
 * Where to put the proposal depends on the matter in question. If you are only discussing a single article or a small grouping of them, put the proposal on the talk page of one of the articles in question.  If you're talking about large matters that affect large groups of articles, those go on Proposals.  Note that any proposal relating to policy changes are put on MarioWiki:Proposals rather than the policy talk page.  MarioWiki:Proposals should tell you anything more you need to know about making proposals. - 12:16, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Just follow the instructions linked to here. 01:06, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

I don't really see the point in requiring users to provide a reason for their votes
I think it's a pointless rule as users who are forced to provide a reason are just going to either "per all" or "per proposal", when a support vote without a reason is essentially a "per proposal" vote, just as how a support vote for a featured article without a reason is, well, a "per nomination" vote. This might be a different case if someone makes a first oppose, but I don't think people are going to try abuse that nor will solitary oppose votes negatively affect proposal outcome. If there is a case where a single person tried to be the first to vote oppose for no reason, it's extremely rare. Subsequent oppose votes without a reason should otherwise be equal to a "per all" vote. Nevertheless, we exercise discretion anyway when it comes to validity of votes, per Rule 5, so it goes back to this rule ultimately being pointless. 18:58, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Agreeable, but it also conceals invalid votes, should they appear. Invalid votes are a rarity nowadays, that's true, but they still can happen. Even if the odds are slim, removing a rule on the assumption that something won't happen is a bad assumption and likely will cause problems. "Per all" isn't a very difficult phrase to type out, anyways. 19:13, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but I say again, the only time where someone might be needed to justify a vote is when voting on an opposing side or otherwise doesn't agree with the proposer, but Rule 5 easily takes care of obviously invalid votes anyway. "Per all" and "per proposal" also "conceals" invalid votes too. Not hard to type "per all" but I also think there shouldn't be any worry or need to enforce (and thus waste time and space in the comments section pointing out that one needs a reason) if someone wants to vote without any more text beyond the username. We don't require users to support their "yea" votes in Featured Articles (in fact, at one point, we discouraged it, and that turned out inconvenient where we stopped enforcing that). Same here, maybe less inconvenient, but I don't think it's necessary. 19:30, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Requiring a reason is never too much - we have low invalid votes because we forced users to explain why they were voting, especially if they were the first to agree with a side. If we don't require this, how can we distinguish the votes of new users who start voting without reasons from valid "per all" votes? And asking for a reason in the comments section when things get suspicious - which is almost always when very few provide reasons - doesn't take up space as well?--Mister Wu (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Actually, I think I'm fairly sure we have low invalid votes because most people are honest and take this seriously to begin with: I've seen dubious per all votes before done by users who clearly have no clue what they're voting for, and it's not me just being overly speculative either judging by those said user's voting and edit history. Additionally, the point being made is that voting one side is already just a valid "per all" vote, as the intentions of the vote clearly are, so adding a reason just for the sake of satisfying some quota seems to be vastly redundant to me. Also, things don't get that suspicious to begin with: the only places that are ripe for suspicious votes are Featured Articles, because they feature a subject the said voter likes and are more likely to vote biased towards it: in the first place, that's where most of the problem of bad votes originates from; proposals almost never had this issue ever. 14:51, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Troll votes can be spotted with the current system, they are impossible to spot with the system without motivations. This method is going to add an unneeded burden on the proposer and the administrators, because a proposer will want to know why the unexplained opposition votes are there, and the administrators will be forced as well to ask an explanation due to rule 5 in the cases in which an outcome is decided due to unexplained votes. If you want to remove the "per all" statements, how about different solutions like using nested lists below a certain motivation without perring?--Mister Wu (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Troll votes were never a problem to begin with anywhere, and people who vote with trollish intentions wouldn't bother reading any of the rules anyway, so I don't know why troll votes are even a considerable problem. Additionally, trolls can be smarter and mask votes with a "per all" regardless; the best way to deal with trolls is to look at their edit history, and that's it: the general rule otherwise is to assume good faith in which most people who don't add reasons for vote are casted in good faith. I've also questioned the amount of "per all" votes in the past, because I believe people voted without reading any of the arguments opposition made, and with or without the extra text I would still get that vibe. 13:03, 4 September 2018 (EDT)