MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/1

Wiki
None

Forum
}}
 * 1) Hk
 * 2) Silent but deadly! SuperLuigi821 You lost everything. Way to go genious.
 * 3) I agree. Forum should be used more. Plus there are a lot of wiki glitches. Sorry, but I   am   Confused  23:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
 * 4) Original plan, and how it's going to stay.
 * 5) This plan seems better... Think of all the annoying edit conflicts that could happen on the wiki.
 * 6) Edit conflicts made me choose this.
 * 1) Edit conflicts made me choose this.
 * 1) Edit conflicts made me choose this.

Move Chat
TIE 4-4 Troll mentioned has died down, thus result is KEEP ON WIKI

In order to deter trollers and protect this silly little anniversary thing, it has come to the attention of many that the chat should be moved back to the forums. This move has not previously been opposed, it has merely been put off.
 * Unfortunately, this might lower the number of users in chat. If enough users support with strong supporting arguments, we may get this through the system at a higher speed.
 * This would deter trolls in the future.
 * No real troll attack on the anniversary thing.

Proposer: Hk Deadline: 17:00, 6 June

{{scroll box|content=

Let it lie where it is

 * 1) – The chat needs to be open to everyone – compromise could be for Steve to unlock the restriction on the forum.
 * 2) Stumpers It's much more appealing where it is... I mean you just click. Boom.
 * 3) Bottle Wizzerd - Nobody can troll forever. :/
 * 4) --Shyster 19:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)-I think willy is gone for good. Bottle Wizzerd is right too.

Move Chat to Forum

 * 1) Hk-As is said, many users are for this change, and this will definitely deter trolls.
 * 2) Keeps trollers away from forum, some might not even know where the forum is
 * 3) While it is more convenient to use the Wiki Chat, the Forum Chat is less suceptible to hacking and random IP chatting. Sorry, but I   am   Confused  21:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * 4) Forums, without a doubt. It'd prevent spammers and the like. If one is too lazy to simply go to the forums and access the chat, then they shouldn't be on it. Eggbert

Comments People seem to believe this Willy guy is going away soon. Take a look-- he's been here forever. One of the first big things I did on this wiki a year ago was move pages back to their rightful name after Willy had his first bout of fun. He ISN'T going anywhere.
 * This is what it says in the block log about Willy: 07:55, 18 June 2006 Porplemontage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Willy on Wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (troll), and that was about a year ago. He's struck several more times, and keeps coming back.
 * This Willy is another Willy who idolizes the first one. 20:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * There have also been several other past Willy attacks that follow the same same pattern, plus Silly Dan, plus StarNeptune, equals Willy won't quit. Besides, Plumber, think of the horrible nasty things hes said about YOUR sister. Although, the entire thing could be WarioLoaf.
 * Personally, Willy and all who worship him will never calm down. There is no educating the unreasonable.
 * Exactly. How many of us have tried to reason with ALttP and failed? The unreasonable are, and I tried hard to figure out how to phrase this, but there really isn't a word, un-educatable.
 * We have successfully reasoned with Willy already, and he wants to be a good user. I stopped him, also by reacting normally and continuing his remarks like he was starting a conversation. 20:50, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Supposedly, in chat, he said that he wanted to become a good user, but can't control himself. Then he said something about p***s and p**p, so we don't believe him that much. >_<
 * You reasoned with him? I doubt it.
 * We talked to him, but I doubt he'll do anything to reform.
 * I wonder why nobody trusts anybody? 20:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Its tough to trust someone who acts like Willy. Savvy?
 * He's had a lot of chances, and blew them all.
 * 3D, vote for the change.
 * Maxlover2 had a lot of chances and blew them all but one. 21:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * OK, we know. But this guy, I beleive, will never change. And I think the chat should stay where it is. We can just kick Willy when we comes.
 * Maxlover2 isn't a troll.
 * When he first cmae here, he knew none of the rules. Like me.
 * And me. Maxlover2 was a troll, on Wikipedia. He came here to spam, but 3D was nice to him, so he stopped. 21:11, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Seriously? Wow. Anyway, I personally beleive he is a spammer, and a spammer he will stay. Sorry. Look at Peachycakes!
 * Look, Willy is a buffoon, and he won't stop. Look at what he said to your sister, he's a sick freak, how can you forgive him?
 * And all that stuff about "My p3|\|15 grows like ice cream" and "I like to eat creamy p**p".... AAAH! IT'S SICK!
 * Personally, I never had a problem before on the forum. Plus, on the forum, it is required to give out e-mail confirmation. I don't think Willy is dumb enough to give out his e-mail just to harrass us. Sorry, but I   am   Confused  21:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Is there any need to still have this proposal? Willy was unmasked and is gone for good, so there's no need to move the chat anywhere now... o.o ~ Bottle Wizzerd
 * Is he really gone for good this time?
 * You must really tell me all about it, but not now, for it grows late.
 * And yes, Wizzerd, the proposal stays open anyway so we can find out what the people want.
 * He IS gone for good, it was WL the whole time, seemingly. And the opinions now are flawed, since the main problem was Willy. He's gone now, so I don't think all opinions are accurate now. ~ Bottle Wizzerd
 * WL was NEVER Willy. The addreses never matched.

}}

PAIR
ACCEPTED 8-0

Panel for Article Improvement and Recognition This acronym has nothing to do with the purpose of this feature, it's just something easy to remember. Credit to Hk for name :D

PAIR is the new [proposed] system to replace Peer Reviews, which were scrapped after no edits. Credit to Stumpers for inspiration/beginnings of the idea behind the system. It partially would use the "FlaggedRevs" extension on MediaWiki, which will work when MediaWiki version 1.11 will come out (we are on 1.10 right now). That is, if this is voted in, we can wait for 1.11 to come out (it can come out at any time), or start ahead of time, doing things manually. Let me explain the basis for how this will work:
 * Any user who has been on the wiki for a certain amount of time (3 months?) and who has at least a certain amount of edits (500?) will be able to "review" a revision of an article for accuracy (all facts are true), depth (details, everything needed present), and readability (grammar/spelling, flow of sentences) on a scale of either 1-4 or Low, Medium, High, and Exceptional. This user right is called "editor".
 * A user assigned by bureaucrats [me] the "reviewer" user right will be able to validate these reviews and make it official. The revision is now called "stable", and in the article a link to the last stable version is provided in a tab. Additionally, reviewers will be able to review articles the highest rates possible (4/Exceptional), while editors are limited up to 3/High. These users would be chosen for activeness and major contributions to articles, showing their writing prowess here and can be trusted with properly reviewing an article.
 * A combination of 3-6 editors and/or reviewers should work on an article, with at least 2 reviewers. Enough so that there's input, but not too much or it becomes a vote like previously.
 * Any comments should go in a section of the talk page – a template would signify this.
 * When two reviewers finds that the accuracy, depth and readability are all at 4/Exceptional, the article can be nominated for FA status.

By manually, reviews would be temporarily done on the talk page until 1.11 comes out.

Proposer: (started by ) Deadline: 17:00, 13 June {{scroll box|content=

Use the System

 * 1) – everyone is laid out fairly, efficient, plenty of capable users to make the system work consistently
 * 01:28, 7 June 2007 (EDT) Well, I'm a little confused on the specifics, and it might be too complex, but y'know what? We won't know until we try, so full steam ahead IMO.  Heh, heh... I'm voting for an idea I started... I feel kinda cheat-ish.  Thanks for working out the details Wayoshi!
 * 1) - Sounds fair. But we'll have to see if we can concentrate on the same article long enough to have a proper result.
 * 2) This may just be perfect.
 * 3) I helped design the system, actually. Wayoshi modified my details.
 * 4) – If this doesn't work out, we can alway go back to the old way.
 * 1) – If this doesn't work out, we can alway go back to the old way.

Comments
This is probably too early to tell, but here's what I'm worried about, and it's inspired by Cobold's point. For this to be effective, we're going to have to make this system as fast as possible so people don't get bored. Are there any ways that we could trim down on the system? It might work as is, but I just don't want to have it go for a bad run and then have everyone abandon it like the Peer Reviews. It also might help if we could see this visually, like with a diagram. Who knows, though. Maybe all this needs is just a chance to see the system in motion. In any case, I think this is our best bet to keep the FAs. 12:59, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * What we need is for everyone to make an effort and get involved. There's nothing we can do if no one tries. Reviewers especially should watch pages they review (I may force is as a default) and continually look at their watch pages for updates. The editors/users may be responsible for contacting a reviewer to review/validate an article for FA nomination. 16:18, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * How about we stick a section on the main page that features the current under-review articles? That might get people's attention, especially if it's one they worked on ;)  21:49, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * This proposal has reached its deadline. What now? - 09:15, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Well its 8-0 in favor of having it, so it get accepted. But from what I heard we need a mediawiki extension. 10:28, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Sweet... well, as usual, if you need any help, please let me know. :) 14:59, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

}}

Monitor Cursing
MONITOR 12-2

Cursing is a nasty thing, and there are children on this site. Should it be banned officially?

Proposer: Deadline: 20:00, 16 June {{scroll box|content=

Ban it hard

 * 1) -Its a nasty thing.
 * 2) Pokemon DP - Yes, I say definitely get rid of it.
 * 3) Agreed, last thing you'll need is some parent griping about what their kid learned here. Eggbert
 * 4) Maybe for the wiki and discussion, but I think that some (as long as it's not too bad) should be allowed on the forums and chat. Hisak
 * 5) I'd like to see curse words totally purged from this wiki, whether it be in userspace, chat, the forum, or anything.
 * 6) It should only be permitted when in a quote from the Marioverse or when referring to the location hell, or as the description "hellish" etc. Also, people should be allowed to use ****, *bleep*, etc. on userpages for humorous reasons only, but never like, "You are a ****" because we're smart enough to fill in the blanks. --Stumpers lol, I'm kinda moderate on this... maybe I should be in a third category.
 * 7) RickyMario: Cursing? Get rid of it! I am only 12 and I hate cursing!
 * 8) Get rid of it.
 * 9) Words liek Hell seem to be ok... I swear a lot, but swearing on a Mario wiki? COME ON!
 * 1) RickyMario: Cursing? Get rid of it! I am only 12 and I hate cursing!
 * 2) Get rid of it.
 * 3) Words liek Hell seem to be ok... I swear a lot, but swearing on a Mario wiki? COME ON!

What'd be the point?

 * 1) I don't cuss, but I don't see the point of banning it, either.  Why is it that a person can say "idiot" but not "asshole"?  What makes the latter word more offensive than the first?  They both mean the same thing! Waluigi Freak 99 16:17, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * 2) Ultimatetoad

Comments
This is really just to get some use out of the system, as we all have enough foresight to determine the results on this one.

It depends on how extreme some of the words are. Maybe only if the word is actually used in the Marioverse ("Hell" in the DK Rap), but that's the only exception. Actually, "Hell" isn't too bad, since The Underwhere is modelled after it. But again, only when necessary, if ever. Booster
 * Boosty, it should never be necessary.
 * I agree, but what should we do in the rare case where it's actually appropriate (DK Rap)? Booster
 * Heck, I dunno. Use that word there. Heck.

There's no word censor in MediaWiki. I'm not sure if there is an extension for one. 14:29, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * This would be a personal challenge for users, and the entire community would need to make a conscious effort on each and everyone's own part. Plug-ins don't solve everything, and really shouldn't.
 * Take that back. 14:36, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Lol. No. :P
 * This isn't a laughing matter. You're criticizing the reliability of an extension, a piece of coding. 14:41, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * If coding is so powerful, why can't it do all the work? I wasn't insulting it or its reliability. Just citing the fact that they can't do EVERYTHING, and probably shouldn't.
 * WF99, please take away the offensive comment. The second is traditionally considered vulgar and unnacceptable in modern society.
 * But we can't say that the rap's line was "He's one heck of a guy!" That would be a lie.  Something like writing "scared the h*** out of him" shouldn't be permitted of course, but as a referrence to the location, I think that's fine.  However, before using it, we should consider comparisons to the Netherworld, which is a place in the Marioverse (see Shadow Queen). --Stumpers
 * HK, why is it traditionally considered vulgar? It means the same thing as "idiot", which is not traditionally considered vulgar.  Who decided that it is unacceptable?  Some guy somewhere?  As I said, I don't cuss, but I don't see anything wrong with it, and I don't allow my activities to fringe upon the decisions of some guy somewhere.Waluigi Freak 99 13:08, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I absoulutely understand where you are coming from Mr. Freak (Can I call you that?). All I'm saying is that in today's society, idiot is considered a milder version.
 * The thing is, neither word belongs on the writing portion of this Wiki except in quotes from characters, people, etc. However, if you guys wanted to use it on your talk pages (not to each other, I would hope) I don't know why we would have a problem.  Perhaps what we need is a note on the main page that warns users about the content on user talk pages?  I mean... if the word idiot offends people... it's not like I think the user pages should turn into full blown R-rated content.  16:36, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, what the hell? I'm sorry, but this is the stupidest thing I've seen you people argue about. If a curse word is needed as part of a quote/script/site name/game name/whatever, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not My First Dictionary First Grade Edition. Actually, that would be better. Most of those dictionaries list curses too. Only a few instances of blatant profanity being a problem can be sited. Don't make a problem out of nothing. -- Chris 23:48, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I think we're talking about user fairness, especially in chat. Any Mario quotes with profanity, if it ever comes up, will be shown in full here, or nearly in full, here. If this is accepted, when I create the policy I'll mention that is applies to the community, not the encyclopedia aspect. 23:41, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Ummmm...... EVERYONE curses, me, you, and ... well..... a greayt proportion of all humanity. Personal Attacks are already banned, I don't see the need of banning the occasional vulgar phrase. And what, may I ask, describes a "curse word"? Is there a specific requirment? I think this is dumb.... - Ultimatetoad

We want this site to appear professional. How about we just not use these (censored for the sake of kids but you know what they are): fu**, co**, sh**, bi***, as*, cu**, fa*, ect. There should already be rules against racist slurs and insults against groups of certain people, re***d, ni**a, ch**k, ect. If it's used in certain context like location or not as an insult, it can be acceptable, queer, hell, gay, ect. As for the childish ones like dork, idiot, loser, I would be surprised if any of you actually use those in insults. '''PLUS THIS IS A MARIO SITE. THERE'S NO SWEARING IN ANY OF THE GAMES, CHILDREN COME HERE'''. Just use symbols, it's not that hard. - Yoshi Mastar
 * The one instance in Donkey Kong and any other "in game instances" will be allowed as exceptions. Elsewise, avoid it as much as possible. This will be said in the policy I'll draw up if the proposal is passed.
 * FYI DB you have "Im just some idiot that does cra**."

It definately should be allowed in the encyclopedia if it ever comes up. If somone is can read they have most likely heard every swear word, and if they havn't they will not be scared for life. They are part of the english language and if there is a purpose for on of them to be used in the database they should not be censored. It not this websites job to babysit children. p.s. asshole and idiot do not mean the same thing in any context. several of you seem ot be confused about this. Threegee

I changed it...


 * No Prob...

Alright, there are only two times when I could see it, because there are two "swears" in the whole of the "Marioverse" thing. The first is obviously the DK64 rap, and the second is a NPC in Mario Tennis: Power Tour, who says, "We suck!" referring to a school that lost a championship. That's it. Finito. End of story. Why is this being such an issue? :) 01:23, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

What about the obvious Underwhgere=Hell thing? As Threegee said, it is not our job babysit kids on this site. It should be used when it is needed, and Suck is NOT a cuss word. - Ultimatetoad
 * Look: THe few times its necessary in an article, sure, fine, go ahead. But the Ban is affecting OUTSIDE of articles.

So why shouldnt we use it when talking among ourselves? If it is appropriate, like saying "Damn it!" when something bad happens, and not doing it excessivly..... - Ultimatetoad

But, even right there, when you said "not doing it excessivly" that's still a sort of ban... I don't know. Maybe we should just put a message on the front page that notes that talk pages are fair game. Oh, and btw, suck isn't a cuss, I know. It is rude, though, and you wouldn't find it on an encyclopedia page ;) 00:30, 12 June 2007 (EDT) }}

Welcoming Committee
ACCEPTED 7-1

I propose a Welcoming Committee  that will be run by yours truly. The welcoming comtiee will make sure Every User gets a welcome, welcoming will not be restricted to just Committee members everyone can help. The Committee will also help users with user stuff and mariowiki stuff, a Committee member will have had to be aroud for a while, be able to handle stress, and great knowledge of WikiSyntax. I see how this Committee will do no harm, besides all it will do is help.

Proposer: Deadline: 15:00, 24 June

{{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 1) Let's help them!
 * 2) Hk -- Erm... Yeah. Newbies are important. We all go through that stage.
 * 3) – wasn't sure at first, but the continual help afterwards convinced me.
 * 4) – Although a lot of the committee goals seem like simple user duties, newbies do indeed need help and a team dedicated to answering their questions seems like a pretty good idea.
 * 5) n00bs are the future of our wiki! with SOS gone we need more users contributing.
 * 1) – Although a lot of the committee goals seem like simple user duties, newbies do indeed need help and a team dedicated to answering their questions seems like a pretty good idea.
 * 2) n00bs are the future of our wiki! with SOS gone we need more users contributing.

Comments
Bean, you need a better reason than that, and I already said we could help newbies without a committee, Hk.
 * I end up helping everyone, it'd be nice to have some guys that can help too, and if we have an "unofficail Comitee" why not make it offical, this will end up helping the wiki and making it better.
 * Well, I don't think it should be run by anyone. A committee is usually run by everyone. And if everyone can participate, it isn't really a commitee.
 * But they don't, and now they'll ask the people in the Committee.
 * Why do you need to be in charge? Something like this won't benifit from having a ruler.
 * Everyone comes to me anyways >_>, and besides there has to be someone in charge.
 * Why does there need to be someone in charge?

So I can add comittee members, cause you don't want a new user showing up and asking someone for help but they don't know what to do. all I'm saying is I want people who know what their doing to be the comitttee. And the leader (Me) make sures that they know what their doing...You don't members who can barely help themselves on it.
 * But you said anyone can be on the commitee. 17:39, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * No I believe I said anyone can welcome ;)...
 * PLUMs, when I first got here, I was really confused. Help pages?  Didn't know where they are and I still have to request help because there are still so many topics not covered by those pages, but are instead on Wikipedia in "wikispeak".  I dunno.  Basically, if I had gotton one of those nice templates when I came, it would have helped somewhat.  But, yeah.  23:10, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh. Well, I still don't see a reason why the commitee can't vote on new members and needs a leader.

Well if this get added, I'd certainly consult the other guys before adding new members...
 * Oop. I was assuming the idea would get fleshed out as it was implimented.  Maybe what we should do is have a trial period?  00:18, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

}}

5 Links
KEPT 6-4

I propose to remove the Only 5 links in sig rule. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, 25 June

{{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 1) Strong Support Wayoshi, just because you only need 5 doesn't mean everyone else only needs 5. I, for example, need 6 really.
 * 2) --This is a silly rule.
 * 3) come on! i mean you should be able to have more than that!
 * 1) come on! i mean you should be able to have more than that!

Oppose

 * 1) – User, user talk, and any 3 out of the following: user comic, user story, contribs, email, external link. 5 is a perfect amount.
 * 2) Gofer
 * 3) – Five links is enough, if not too much; any more is just annoying.
 * 4) – It is quite hard to click on the links which are only a single character wide. Pretty pointless if you ask me.
 * 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT) – sorry guys, but the other users are right, it does get confusing. Sigh, this means I'll have to remove one of me links. 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
 * 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT) – sorry guys, but the other users are right, it does get confusing. Sigh, this means I'll have to remove one of me links. 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Comments
Most people don't look at all five links so they're useless, and its annoying when i try to respond to someone and I have to llok through all the links.

It should be no more than 10, but 5 is too little.
 * And ten is too much.
 * Yeah, 9 seems about right.

7 is OK, right?
 * 1 for userpage
 * 1 for talk
 * 3 for subpages (these 3 are wayoshi's plan)
 * 2 links to other pages (these are what most people want/need)

That's fair, right?

Maybe 8 to play it safe. Actually, just leave the links alone if you don't want to click them. And just click their userpage one, and go to the talk tab, Gonzo.

2 "Other" pages usually = other userpages or articles, which are either banned or useless. 18:51, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

again. Just because you think they're useless doesn't mean they are.

Yeah. Max's plan seems good, but he left out contribs.
 * Take SLS for example i have to hover over all his links to reply to him, and even his userpage is annoying to find.

well, that's a different story. How about at least 6 links?

The userpage is almost always the first one. And SLS's one is the first one.
 * Why do you need more than five links anyway, 1 for userpage, 1 for talk, one for contribs(maybe) and then three(or two) for subpages.

For Fantendo.

What he said. and article links. and about... 2 users actually have 3 or more subpages.
 * why exactly do we need article links? and if only a few users have 3 Subpages then there really is no need to have more than 5.

because, it's convinient... and it's helpful... and just because You and washi don't need them doesn't mean we don't.
 * and cause you and pumber need them doesn't mean everyone else does.

Well, we'll see how many do at the end of the week.

I feel very strongly that is a silly rule. Just because one or two people find something useless doesn't mean it is.
 * alright after looknig over all the sigs Heres the stats: 51 Sigs = Less than 4 links, only 19 = have More or around that number.

I think 5 is a perfect number. Userpage, talkpage and subpage, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see the point in linking wiki articles, I can see why people link them, but geez, why adding even more slot for something tottaly pointless? And that signature check was a godsend for me, when you fear that Plumber send you a message because his sig will lag your computer, you know there's something wrong. Gofer
 * lol, I'm sorry... I use a pretty good computer. But, I will admit that Banana-Plumber is a little annoying to see 10 times on a talk page... but it is cute.  If this is a lag problem I would say that you should be the deciding factor. 00:23, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

}}