MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/15



Poll Selection Page
REORGANIZE 7-0

I looked at the Poll selection page, and I have to admit something: It is a disaster. So here is what I am proposing: We clean it up. To get more into detail: If this is passed, and it works, we can make suggesting and voting on new polls easier, quicker, and more efficient. Also, this plan can reduce loading time for the pages. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: Friday, 3 July 2009, 20:00
 * We have it split into multiple pages with 25 suggested polls on each page (In example, we have MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page1, MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page2, and so forth. We can link them together with a table like on the Proposals Archive, for example.
 * No signatures. I know this was already a rule, but many users either A) Get around the rules by putting the images as they are in their signature and then putting the allowed coding. B) Flat out ignore the rule and post a signature. After a while, when users start doing this, it becomes out of hand to deal with the problem. All in all, what I am saying here is: You are only allowed to sign with or Whatever.
 * Other laws of organization: Basically, if/when this proposal passes, we enforce these rules on a regular basis, and if it is necessary, make rules to adapt to new situations. This is obvious, but it did not seem to work on the page.

Reorganize Poll Selection Page

 * 1) Per my reasoning above and Timmy Tim's vote below.
 * 2) It's falling apart and needs mending. Deleting repeat polls and one with more opposers than supporters will also have to be done.
 * 3) - Agreed. I've been wanting to do that by posting messages on the Poll Selection talk page and asking if I actually could do it, but a proposal definitively is the best way to enforce these rules and make that "disaster" a good page. If you need help with it, I'm up to the job. (I don't know if that expression exists, but w/e :P)
 * 4) - Of course, this will make it even more difficult to delete polls that are opposed or non-mario-related. After this proposal passes, hopefully I will be able to find a way to get around this.
 * 5) - Aye per Super Mario Bros. It takes too long to load the polls page; its content is too large.
 * 6) I am Zero! I sort of like and dislike (50/50) the idea of splitting the poll selection page into several pages. The no signature rule doesn't need to be enforced, nobody use signatures in the new polls. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Lu-igi board 15:22, 3 July 2009 (EDT)about time.

Comments
Paper Yoshi, I'm sorry to say I can't have your help in reorganizing the page right now, but in helping to observe the rules and help keeping it cleaned after I finish reorganizing it will help me a whole lot, as we might as well not do the proposal if the page is going to get messed up again. So, once again, to help me, all you need to do is keep the page clean once I'm finished. Thank you for your wanting to help me though.

- How are you going to be able to get rid of the signatures that cover most of the polls already? I'm sure your not going to delete all those polls?
 * No, I'm not deleting polls based on signatures, the signatures in question can easily be changed to acceptable forms of signing. The only polls that are going to be deleted are the ones with two more opposes than supporters. For a more in depth version of my plan, check my other comment below.
 * Well, here is my plan. First, I am going to, as Timmy Tim suggested, delete the polls that have two more opposes than supporters. Then, I am going to take the remaining ones and put them on separate pages, each page holding a maximum of 25 polls, and they will be linked to each other by a table (similar to the Proposals Archive pages). After that, I am going to change the signatures to   coding, therefore completing my plan and reorganizing the Polls Page. The pages, however, need to be maintained and kept organized. This should reduce loading time and make the Poll Selection page(s) more presentable, among other benefits that are gained from this project.
 * - It's not really a question of how easy it is to change the signatures, but how long it will take. But if you have the time to change every signature on the poll page, then go ahead. ps. I was the one that made the rule to delete polls with 2 more opposers than supporters
 * If it passes, I should be finished organizing the day it meets deadline.

}}

Enforce No-Signature Policy
ADD NEW RULES 3-0

I feel that the "No-Signature Policy" on many of the pages around the wiki have been utterly violated. Many of the users like to use the "letter of the law" technique as opposed to the "spirit of the law", which, in other scenarios, is okay, but is not good to this policy. Due to many pages that feature the "No-Signature Policy" having limited space, they cannot touch upon the many ideas that were originally expressed when this "policy" went into enactment. As of such, as I stated earlier, many users dodge the rules (see the second bullet in my above proposal about the Poll Selection page). As of such, I would like to create one page that has detailed rules on the subject, and that could be linked to pages that share these many ideas. The page, if created, would most likely be titled  MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy . A rough draft of my proposed page can be located here.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} (With great advice from {{User|Walkazo}}) Deadline: Sunday, 5 July 2009, 15:00

Make the New Page

 * 1) Remember, this proposal was not made to prevent this from happening, it was made to stop what is currently going on and prevent it from happening again in the future.
 * 2) - We can use a page like that to explain why we need to enforce the use of the -Template instead of personalized signatures.
 * 3) - Sounds good. Per all.

Comments
On what pages exactly has this rule been violated? What pages are under this rule, anyway? - 17:36, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Technically, the rule has been violated on the featured images page as well as the poll selection page, which say that no signatures are allowed. Most times, signatures are frowned upon because of the images or size, that they ruin counting and slow computers down, among others. Users, instead, post the image and then allowed coding. They basically dodge the rules, so they are technically not breaking them in the way that they are stated, but they are skipping around the original intents that the rules stated were based on. Which is why I proposed this, to make a policy that is more in depth and that can be linked to on these pages.

I made changes on the page that is linked to. Walkazo gave me some great suggestions, and I incorporated them into the rules list.
 * More changes have been made. Credit goes to Walkazo for the changes, she is really helping me with the ideas for the page.

I find it ridiculous and annoying that almost all proposals these days are about signature rules.
 * I know, I hate making them just as much, but when we have users that dodge rules, it has to be done. Plus, this should be the last proposal about signatures (other problems about the signatures can be dealt with by a minor proposal, per say, on the discussion of a page that needs to deal with signature problems).

}}

Article censorship
NO CENSORING 12-0

I want to settle this once and for all. Do we want to censor the Bob Hoskins article or not?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|Clear Discoherency}} Deadline: 11 July 2009, 20:00

Don't censor it

 * 1) We are a wiki dedicated to using full information on Mario, I wouldn't say to censor it
 * 2) - This has been settled once and for all - on many occasions! This is an encyclopedia: our mandate is to communicate as many facts about Mario as we can, and that includes profane quotations. We do not censor anything. Fortunately, in the case of Bob Hoskins, there is a way to communicate his negative attitude towards the Super Mario Bros. film without including the f-word, and we decided to go with option a while ago to avoid this reoccurring nightmare of a debate.
 * 3) &mdash;An encyclopedia's goal is to report accurate information. We are under no obligation to censor facts just because people could potentially be offended by a simple word. It is the parent's responsibility to teach their children right and wrong, not ours. Our only goal is to report facts relating to the Mario series.
 * 4) I guess every body else is right.
 * 5) Per all. Why not put up a warning template or something like that?
 * 6) I am Zero! A warning template will be a better idea. But I agree with this proposal, first of all SMW is a free encyclopedia that gives information on anything Mario[-related], second we are trying to make Mariowiki as close as possible to Wikipedia with alternations on this webpage, I said that because, in Wikipedia, I don't have an account there but I can still go to an article about a vag***, te*******, se*, and pe*** with pictures and detail and a movie article called Fu** without them being cencored, and last of all on a side-note, try to make your proposal more convinsing. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per All
 * 8) Per Zero
 * 9) - Though on the original proposal I was for censoring it, now I just don't see the point. Whatever.
 * 10) As I have stated in the past, a wiki is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not censor information.
 * Per all. I'm glad to see so many people are against censoring an encyclopedia. Nowhere do we claim that this is a kid-friendly wiki, in fact this is "a collaborative knowledge-base about everything in the Marioverse" (see here), and censoring conflicts with this objective.
 * 1) Per all.

Comments
I think this younger person stuff is bullcrap because if we all know what a swear is then how is exposing us to a swear gonna hurt us? Explain that smb.
 * Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok? we are supposed to be an age-friendly wiki. Movies and games themselves are rated PG-13 and T for Teens when swear words are present, and we are supposed to be a G-rated or E for Everyone wiki. So why do you want your bullshat so bad, huh?

I wouldn't think it would by true to the quote by changing quotes however. Why would anyone care about a quote with the f-word in it? Yknow I used to not swear at all but when I realized it was pointless to not swear I swear all the time now.
 * Yes, that may be the case for you, but others try not to or don't like to. I myself do not like to curse. I find it vulgar and unnecessary. If we censor it, readers still understand that a curse word is being said, so what is the loss?

This whole edit war is pointless anyway. Its only going on because Max2 acted immature about a little swear

Enough of the flamey remarks, already. We have no mandate to be a "kid-friendly" Wiki, all we are obligated to do is tell the truth. Every time someone goes on the Internet, they run the risk of running into profanity, or worse, and heck, you take the same exact risk everything you go outside. It's not our responsibility to shield little kids from words they are gonna learn sooner or later, and if it interferes with our abilities to communicate all the Mario-centric information at our disposal, we shouldn't even be trying. In the case of Bob Hoskins we can preserve most of that quote without profanity; it was a compromise many agreed on, and it still stands. -
 * And to you, Walkazo, a proposal has been made, I'm not going to be shut up. I find it ridiculous that this is considered flaming, or that you consider this flaming, as I am stating my point of view.

I'm done arguing and wasting my breath about this even though it was pointless in the first place. Go ahead and go eat each other if you want I'm setting this one out.
 * Yeah, ok.

In response to SMB's earlier comment: A) I said "flamey", not "flaming". B) I wasn't talking about the proposal itself, I was talking about the comments: "So why do you want your bullsh*t so  bad, huh?" "Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok?" "Explain that smb." - that's all egging each-other on, which is "flamey" - you're both rearing for a fight, and that's not acceptable, so just cool your jets. -

In response to Walkazo: Ok. Directed towards CD: Please delete this proposal. If the edit war is pointless, please just delete it. You should have dealt with Max2 yourself or had another user, perhaps sysop or bureaucrat, deal with him.
 * Since it's your proposal, you have to delete it. -

It is not mine, CD created it.
 * True... Sorry, I was just commenting based on the fact CD commented first and usually it's someone besides the Proposer who comments first... Plus it's late and I'm tired... -
 * It's ok. i'm tired too. Ah forget it. I'm just going to remove my vote. i will probably wake up in the morning and realize that everybody else was right. Anywho, sorry for any flaming I could have almost started.

Just to be clear, is this only for Bob Hoskins? Because Princess_Toadstool_for_President has the word "fuck" in it, and it'd be nice to have it set in stone somewhere what happens when this inevitably comes up again.

Per twenty of two seven, walka please look at his points then tell me if we shouldn't have the word "fuck" in the Bob Hoskins article.--Clear Discoherency 01:03, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

The deadline is up now anyway too bad we havn't reached a verdict besides walka's answer
 * That's because the deadline was off. Proposals are supposed to be up for exactly one week. This hasn't even lasted a day. Anyway, it's been fixed. &mdash;

Well, it's 4-0 against censorship, which is a pretty clear verdict. But, if it only applies to Bob Hoskins, then that's not so much of an accomplishment of policy making. Now, I'm not sure why exactly there would be a need for a proposal so specific, but that's what the text seems to imply. After all, we can't really say "no lol it meant this," and expect it not to raise issues. Or, at least, I see it that way. 01:24, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

"walka" is me, right? Pertaining to 2257's example, "jävla" has to be included in order to properly explain Bowser's "Din jäv-" quotation, and if we have the Swedish swear, why not the English equivalent? Still, like the Bob Hoskins quote, I suppose it would be possible to just leave the whole Trivia point as this, and still cover all the bases: In the Swedish dub, when Bowser gets smacked by the kid, he says "Din jäv-", but stops himself, as the word he was about to utter is a profanity. This can be compared to a truncated "F-" exclamation in English. Personally, I think the whole "jävla" exposition is interesting, but it's not essential, so I can see why removing it (and the full Bob Hoskins quote) is a reasonable compromise in the face of these sort of heated debate. "Fuck" is simply not worth the trouble. -


 * My point is that this might will come up again in the future, so it would be nice to have an actual policy about it. Rather than arguing about it later, we could get it over with and use this as a policy for when censorship debates rise up again. And there's actually other pages with profanity, that was just an example. 02:02, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
 * We need a lot more official policies around here... I think the standing unofficial policy on profanity is that "We're an encyclopedia, and as such, we do not censor our articles. However, users are asked to use their discretion when dealing with profanity on the Wiki mainspace." We could easily add some sort of rule along those lines to a policy page somewhere, maybe with links to any text previously written about flaming and vandalism, so that people will know the difference between using curse words academically and using them in an unacceptable, vulgar manner. -

Couldnt we just replace the word with F*** or sonething along those lines? This has been blown out of proportion.
 * - Why don't we just create a censored version and a non-censored version? This way, we can warn users that the non-censored one is bad for them!

}}

Update One After Another
DO NOT UPDATE ONE AFTER ANOTHER 4-8

I propose that everything on the main page like featured article, featured image, poll, and did you know sections should all be updated between one hour to one day after another, it doesn't really matter in what order they should be in, just as long as they are updated, and there time limit should be one week of staying in the main page, Mario news and proposal section should be the only exceptions. I said this because one time the "did you know" section, it had the same three trivias stayed there for about three months and like six months ago on the poll section it didn't work on some computers. The main page is sometimes confusing to keep track of even if your'e a user or just a visitor to the site, so that is why I came up with this idea.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Zero777}} Deadline: Monday, 13 July 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! A lot of users will agree on this idea, since its simple but it affects not only users but also visitors coming to the SMW. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Zero.
 * 3) Per Zero.
 * 4) Per Zero.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my first 2 comments below.
 * OK, I think it should be more like, the quote updates every hour, the image every day and the article every week.
 * 1) - Just be glad they get turned over at all. The Wiki is very high-maintenance, and the last thing the few people who have enough initiative to update these features need is an arbitrary schedule to try and follow.
 * 2) Per Walkazo
 * 3) per Walkazo
 * Per Walkazo. Also, I like the way the main page is updated now. I do agree with you (Zero777), though, that the Did You Know section should be updated more often. But obviously there just aren't any users wo would like to do that, and you can't force someone to do it.
 * 1) Per Walkazo
 * 2) - Per all. We don't have more of 1000 featured articles in the wiki as to show them all every day (though we're happy we have a nice number of FAs). However, that's true the "Did you know...?" section should need a scheduled update.

Comment
Not to be rude, but that would screw up the Featured Article and/or Featured Images schedule, each one is only supposed to be up on the Main Page for a week, it's not that simple, even though it seems minor, this would require a lot of work during a day. 18:47, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Plus, we don't control the Quote of the Day, it is randomly selected by a program. I agree with you on the subject of the "Did You Know" section, that could use work. 18:52, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
 * What's funny is that I make 1 proposal about the Poll Selection page, and we get a swarm of them after it passes. 19:02, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

}}

No Signature Policy on FA Pages
APPLY NO SIGNATURE POLICY TO FA PAGES 7-0

OK, I'm pretty nervous, this is my first proposal and I have no idea how to do it. I've asked Walkazo and I think she explained it well so bear with me. I think that the proposals for featured articles and proposals to unfeature articles are very good and put power even in the hands of the users and for this, I commend whoever helped make it. The only problem with this system (according to me) is the fact that those pages do not observe the no-signature policy. When I look at the nomination for Luigi, I see a giant mess of names and pictures which really distracts me from the point of the page. If we could just add the rule that the page follows the no-signature policy then we could follow some of the most important parts of the wiki, without getting a headache. I know this may inconvenience several users but you can show your signature off on almost every single page on the wiki! Why does it have to be on an FA page.

The pages for Featured Image, Featured Poll and even this page follow that policy, so why shouldn't the Featured Article be like the Featured Image or the Featured Poll?

Thank you and I hope you consider my proposal carefully before voting.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Deadline: July 15, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Well, it is my proposal, do I have to rewrite what I said here? P.S. Thanks SMB!
 * 2) Why would I oppose? I like the idea... And what do you mean too much work? In fact, to prove you wrong, I would like to offer at least a little help in this project.
 * 3) Makes sense to me. Per all.
 * 4) - Per Marioguy1. Seeing as all the other voting pages follow the No-Signature Policy, it seems like an oversight that it's taken until now to include the FA pages as well.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) I am Zero! Good idea, there should be a no-sig policy in the FAs. Zero signing out.
 * 7) per all Lu-igi board 13:09, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Comments
Basically to sum this up, read the title, it says everything.

If this proposal passes successfully, please do not edit all the signatures on the existing FA nomination pages, because that would manipulate the date of the last edit, and this date is important (nominations that haven't been edited in a month are deleted).

Fine but what if we see a user edit the page, then can we take advantage of the situation and get rid of my headache forever?
 * Yes, that would be fine.

}}

More Than A Joke
DO NOT ALLOW FAKE "NEW MESSAGES" BOXES 9-6

Over on Bulbapedia, they've recently created a rule that doesn't allow the fake "new messages" box template. And I think we should have that rule too. It was OK to start off with, but it's like that "Uranus" joke- IT'S GETTING OLD, VERY ANNOYING AND NOT EVEN REMOTELY FUNNY! Almost every User Page I go on, I see a fake "New messages" box that gets me excited, but then I put my cursor over it and it says it leads to a random page, or the "Special: Mytalk" page. They are absolutely meaningless, and it makes our Wiki look like a load of pranksters. To cut a long story short, it makes us look bad, and if somebody was thinking of joining, they might be misled into thinking that they'll just get teased a lot. So, let's get rid of those templates on User Pages!

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Hyper Guy}} Deadline: July 18, 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) Because I made this proposal, I'm in. Read the description for my reason!
 * 2) I hate those fake boxes.
 * 3) Per all.I rarely get a message, and when I see that banner, I get all excited, then before I know it, I'm on some YouTube page or something.
 * 4) You know what? I now agree. This is a joke, it was funny at first, but now it's just gotten annoying. Some of us have slower older computers as it is, why should we have to be subject to unnecessary slow loading time just because another user thought it would be funny? It also sparks too much false hope into us when we go ahead and see that it was fake. Perhaps we should allow boxes that do not have misleading text.
 * 5) Per all; it isn't even funny. While I have never clicked a link on one of these fake 'new messages' boxes, it is very easy to accidentally click it out of excitement. And it's very easy to link it to a page or website that is innapropriate, and that user who clicked the link out of misfortune would be forced to see it. And that's just NOT RIGHT!
 * 6) I seriously hate them. I didn't care for them until I clicked on one. It sucks when your expecting a message and it shows one, and leads to that one youtube singer. Who would do this, it's torture!
 * 7) per all, I'm sick of them.
 * 8) I've been there before, and I don't want that to happen to other people. Per all.
 * 9) Concise version: It's troublesome and not even funny, thus failing the definition of 'joke'. And per Leirin, as it could link to a page that, while not inappropriate, may cause trouble for that user in some way.

Oppose

 * 1) - It's become sort of a tradition, and so many people have it, so it would be hard to get rid of them all.
 * 2) Per Ralpfan,The fake message box is nothing more than a harmless joke.
 * 3) I am Zero! Yes, it's just a harmless joke and plus before you click on it, it will tell you where will you go, and who cares about that, that is more like your personal promblem and you can click the last page button anytime. But, there should be a rule about not makeing fake messages that make you log out. Zero signing out.
 * 4) - The last wiki that copied Bulbapedia got caught in a huge vandalism war because Bulbapedia has over 10,000 users and lots of them really like it (I was one of the people who pointed out the similarities between the two wiki's pokemon platinum articles, yes I used to edit there under Pokemonguy1, see any similarities?). Anyhow, I don't want to enter into the same predicament that they were in.
 * 5) per all. If some user wants to act like s/he is 7 years old with the Uranus joke then let them
 * 6) per all. harmless fun that gives you a good feeling to fall for, just like rick-rolling.

Comments
Maybe, I said MAYBE, we could make it against the rules to log users out with that thing, doing that is actually annoying -
 * Yeah, per Marioguy1.

I am Zero! A pokemon wikia, I HATE WIKIAS, I just wish that all wikias are deleted except for the ones that don't have a good/wiki counterpart. Zero signing out.
 * Actually Zero, a wikia is a collaboration of all subjects, if the Pokémon and Mario wikis are deleted, how will that be a collaboration of all subjects? -

This is (perhaps) the only good Proposal I've seen this year. Shame on all of you for opposing it. It's almost as unfunny as being rickrolled.

Rickrolling is hilarious, Gamer2.1 does it to everybody, all you have to do is press the back button (yeesh, can't even take a joke)
 * Those who find rickrolling and fake New Messages funny are sad, sad people. That's why I'm retired from this sad, sad place. The immaturity is unbearable here.
 * Takes one to know one, See ya!
 * Nobody is forced to visit other user's pages. Our goal is not to talk to each other and have a funny user page, but to write articles. It's fine having your own user space and putting a lot of cool stuff on your page and all, but if you say you retired because of some jokes on user sites, you didn't take the actual goal of the wiki very serious. -

you hate immaturiaty and yet you have a wombat with a mario hat on your page, Dom? the word "fail" springs to mind....Lu-igi board 13:08, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
 * You're saying this and yet you nominate rubbish images for FI and write down 'great picture :)' even though 95% of the time, they are not. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is Lu-igi board. And besides, St00by made them for him because he's Australian.
 * Still, Dom accepted them and Lu-igi Board is not immature, great image is very well a reason to support an image and will you please remind me when your opinion of an image (oor even 500 people's opinions) were Lu-igi Bosrd's?
 * If you must, continue this discussion on your talk pages, but not here. Thanks.
 * OK, see my talk page!

KangaFlora: Do you know what we're talking about? }}

The Subspace Emissary
MAKE SEPARATE ARTICLE FOR SUBSPACE EMISSARY 6-0

The Subspce Emissary needs its own article. It would be good because the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article is SO long.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Luvluv321}} Deadline: July 22, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Marioguy, Luvluv was right to propose it here, you are only supposed to split with community approval.
 * 2) It'd be an easy split, and it would clean up the huge article that is Brawl.
 * 3) - Well sorry, I thought she just wanted to make the article, not split it! Why wouldn't I support it? Per all.
 * 4) - Agreed, it would be nice to actually go through the Brawl without reading for days. Please make the split.
 * 5) Per Baby Mario Bloops
 * 6) - Per all!

Comments
Then make it, don't propose, just do it

It's been its own article before. Then, Knife redirected it with the comment: "ummm.. it is Brawl's adventure mode, and we decided to keep modes in the game articles, as they retract a lot of content from it. (also, read the name under Subspace Emissary, it does indeed say adven" --

I'm not sure but won't this affect Brawl's FA status?
 * Is Benji's oppose vote even legal? I'm sorry Benji, I think your vote should be removed. There is no real reason for it. 22:49, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Betaman: This cannot affect the FA status of brawl unless a user proposes to unfeature it, any such user should instead vote against it here so that we don't have to go through the long process of voting there. I might even ask an admin to delete that request for unfeaturing if it is in the week after this proposal passes due to ignoring the proposal and trying to make us go through a giant process!

}}

Upcoming Tournaments
ADD UPCOMING TOURNAMENTS TO MAIN PAGE 12-0

The wiki has suffered greatly when it comes to user tournaments, either they are cancelled due to inactive leadership or not enough participants. The latter is likely because many users have no idea a Tourney's going on! I propose something like this under "help us Maintain This Page":



(it would also be accompanied by a date and time)

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|WarioLoaf}} Deadline: July 22, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Sorry, I was a little distracted, anyhow I support this proposal! Advertising tournaments will draw more users around just so they can participate in them.
 * 2) I am Zero! Good idea, I had no idea user tournaments exist. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Per WarioLoaf.
 * 4) Great idea! I didn't even know there were tournaments going on, and this will definitely get users in the know.
 * 5) - All Right! This will make users participate tourneys, and shows dates easily.
 * 6) per all.
 * Yes,we should because a friend had to tell me about it.
 * 1) I am the tournament for one and only one reason. Its to know some users better! It's fun, enjoyable, the cursing when you lose(to bad no other user will hear you). Why not, what is the harm? Hmm, Hmm? I thought so.
 * 2) Per SMB
 * 3) - Per all!
 * 4) - Umm.... i think... per WL
 * 1) - Umm.... i think... per WL

Comments
I don't get it...
 * Whats not to get? it advertises upcoming tourneys for users to attend! --
 * Oooh, why don't you vote on any FA? I don't care, just vote!!!
 * Uh, what has voting on FAs to do with this proposal? Please stay on topic.
 * Per Time Q >_>

}}

Amend No-Signature Policy
DO NOT ALLOW S.W.A.S 7-0

Ok, I guess I'll be the first to propose to amend the No-Signature Policy. I have looked around and have already seen an incident happen when it came across signing: A particular system of signing that is often referred to as Signing Without a Signature (S.W.A.S.). I would like to propose the question: For pages that follow the No-Signature policy, do we allow "S.W.A.S.", or do we not allow it?

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: July 23, 2009, 17:00

Don't Allow S.W.A.S.

 * 1) I don't think we should allow it for the No-sig policy because it is easier to access a user's page and talk page if they provide links as opposed to just words.
 * 2) - Point 1: Simply on four pages of the wiki, FI, FA, PipeProjects and here, you are supposed to sign with a link, four pages. On those four pages, JUST THOSE FOUR, could we please have links to user pages (and from that extent, talk pages). It is four pages, can users not even sacrifice those four pages? Point 2: Doing this will improve how the page looks, having some users sign like this and some like this doesn't look good to me and I'm sure none of you like it either. If we did this, more users would look at the page and see the real info on the page instead of the ugly looks. Point 3: It will allow us to distinguish between votes, just look for the blue writing and there's the end of the vote. More than once, I've passed on to another vote thinking that it was the same vote because it had no blue link at the end of it. The blue links help determine where the end of a vote is by changing the color of the text. Users will (not should, will) learn that when you see blue writing, it means link!
 * Since signing in the XYZ format will be still allowed if this proposal passes, I think I can support the elimination of "S.W.A.S." (i.e., simple text without a link to the author's user page). Links are always helpful, so it's a good idea IMO to "force" users to put them. Sorry for calling this "ridiculous", I just didn't quite understand the proposal.
 * 1) per Time Q.
 * 2) - Sorry for supporting S.W.A.S., I didn't understand the proposal. Example would still be allowed, and links would help distinguish between votes, as Marioguy1 said, and they'd be helpful if you need to get their talkpage.
 * 3) - Per Marioguy.
 * 4) I am Zero! I agree with this idea so much. You literally took the words out of my mouth, this proposal can avoid confusion upon users and visitors. Zero signing out.

Comments
Once again, this is related to a particular incident, I am not inventing the idea for no reason. Also, I'm not voting just yet, I want to see the way most users vote.
 * Marioguy, that was the incident I was referring to.  LOL 
 * It was? OMG!
 * Yeah. I used this page right here (what a small world we all live in).

Marioguy1, please give a reason for your vote.
 * By the way, Time Q, I do not actually have an opinion on whether it should be allowed or not, I just want it added to the Policy so no more confusion goes on. Also, S.W.A.S., if I'm correct, uses no coding with no links. The policy already considers signing with  Whatever  a correct form of signing, perhaps I didn't quite understand the situation... 18:32, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
 * I did give a reason, I yelled at a guy and then got yelled at, I don't like being yelled at!
 * I don't believe not wanting to get yelled at is a valid reason to oppose the proposal.

I don't get what's this proposal is about. Honestly. --Glowsquid 07:13, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
 * SpriteYoshi voted because of Marioguy1's invalid reasons. Should we remove both the votes?
 * I don't know, do what you think is right.


 * Is my vote O-K now?
 * @Yoshario: I didn't either, that's why I asked for it to be removed, I realized that I was wrong in letting my feelings take control of my vote changing it to the worse of the wiki. @Glowsquid: This proposal is proposing the users cannot sign like this and must sign like this. @SpriteYoshi: Pers are never not OK unless you are pering an invalid vote, which you are not. I hope I covered everything.
 * Baby Mario Bloop, do you know what we are talking about? SMB is not proposing that we use signatures on pages, he is only proposing we use links. It will not mess up the page, it will turn the end of each vote blue; distinguishing between the votes.
 * Might I mention that I am not proposing to specifically eliminate SWAS, I am proposing to amend the policy, whether to include SWAS or not. This doesn't mean that this would ban it from every page, rather, it would eliminate it from the pages that follow the policy. 17:05, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Also, Marioguy, might I point out that the No-Signature Policy is followed on more than three pages, another example being the PipeProject page. 17:09, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I only knew about three. Anyways, I know we are referring only to those few pages; see my point 1 thing in my vote. Are you going to vote SMB?
 * Not really, I understand both points of view, I can't make up my mind anyway. 17:25, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't think other users understand that I am trying to promote organization in articles by opposing this proposal. The blue or red writing marks the end of a vote, it's very simple and gives users an easy view of who made the vote; the one with the blue writing did it! If you can find any points to make no links, state them here and I will change my vote (other than server stress because blue writing is not going to crash your computer).
 * You have a point. I will reconsider my vote tomorrow.
 * Thank you, now could you please remove the point about me in your vote?

Yoshario, since you are referring to my vote and I removed it, please check if your vote still applies.

Marioguy: Might I mention, and delete this if I'm wrong, but he provided another reason with his vote as well. He just forgot to remove the per part of his vote. 22:25, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * See my vote
 * Ok, I see that. He provided another reason along with his vote. His vote is outdated, what he means is per Time Q's old reasoning. I don't think he would "per" something that opposes his views: All in all, I don't think that it qualifies moving his vote to the oppose section. 22:37, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Fine, I withdrew my proposal for removal but (there's always a but), if he does not update his vote by tomorrow, I will put back my proposal for removal (trust me, I have the whole thing saved)
 * Okay, I understand. He should update his vote, that gives him enough time to change it. 22:43, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure what SWAS is. Is it something like..... *insert random text here* Luigifreak out. (with no links to the userpage at all in the message.) Also will this remove the blurbs that some people put at the end of all there messages, but still sign at some point?
 * No. }}

Ask A Sysop
NO SUCH SECTION 1-8

Whenever someone has a question, the first person the ask is...a sysop! However, sometimes, the certain sysop isn't available. The wiki should have an "Ask A Sysop" section where people could post a question and a sysop would answer it. This would be much easier than the tedious process of going from talk page to talk page to post your question.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Ralphfan}} Deadline: July 27, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per above!

Oppose

 * We already have the FAQ talk page and the Main Page talk page, so we don't need another one that's basically serving the same purpose. The pages I mentioned also have the advantage that "regular" users can answer there as well. This is good because they might be faster than a sysop, and still know the right answer.
 * 1) - Maybe a userbox (I don't get why you don't say an userbox) that says; this user is an experienced member of the Mariowiki. That userbox links to the Category of experienced users and you ask the active members of that category, but no page for sysops only; I know several users (Me, SMB, WarioLoaf, MeritC, Tucayo, M&SG and Arend) that know a lot of stuff and this category would deprecate them of the opportunity to spark a hope in the hearts of new users by answering their questions to receive that glowing feeling of self-accomplishment. I personally know that I helped WeegeeO and Doopliss Rocks out and I felt good about myself those two nights and I'm not a sysop, if we made this page; less users would come to me (and the aforementioned others) and give me that feeling.
 * 2) Per all. :D
 * 3) - Aye per Time Q, there is the FAQs page to reply some common doubts and the main page to tell somebody what's happening around the wiki. I think these two resources are enough, and, in my opinion, don't consider sysops as gods XP.
 * 4) Per Marioguy1 (And Super Mario Bros.' comment below). I've helped YellowYoshi127, Baby Mario Bloops and Doopliss Rocks and felt good about it, and I'm not a Sysop either.
 * 5) - Per Time Q. We have MarioWiki talk:FAQ and Talk:Main Page, there really isn't a need for other pages.
 * 6) - Per everyone else. You can ask sysops things on their talk page, the FAQ page, the main page talk, forums, chatrooms, etc.
 * 7) What if the Sysop doesn't want to awnser any questions? I think the job of a Sysop would be hard enough, but would be even harder if they had tons of questions piling up.

Comments
One suggestion, a minor one that won't change my vote: Perhaps we should include a list of sysops at the top of the page? 16:21, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * In addition to what coincollector said, Mediawiki created the rank sysop to be users who are trusted with a few extra buttons, they did not intend for them to be the leaders if the wiki, no. They created Bureaucrats to be the leaders of the wiki and they still want other users to have just as much authority as sysops just less power!

}}

Split Missions From Galaxy Articles
NO EXTRA ARTICLES FOR GALAXY MISSIONS 4-9

I think that we should split all of the Super Mario Galaxy missions from their respective galaxy levels. I have started a PipeProject that could help improve the stub articles that would be created, such as adding more in-depth explanations and descriptions about the mission, which planets are traveled to during the mission, creating more specific templates and adding them to the articles, adding/uploading images specific to that level, etc. We could make good articles out of these, but I need community permission before I start splitting a ton of information from the articles. An example of one of these proposed level pages can be found over here.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: Tuesday, 28 July 2009, 17:00 Extended: Tuesday, 4 August 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Nice example, I'm just worried that they won't all be like that! I think it would be only fair as we have articles on: Yoshi's Island 1, Yoshi's Island 2 and even Yoshi's House!
 * 2) Whoops, forgot to vote. Uh, as you can see, I am the proposer, so my reasons are above.
 * 3) I am Zero! Great idea, this can avoid stubs in some articles. Zero signing out.
 * 4) I Am Mario7727 This Is A Very Good Idea.This Could Let Us Avoid Things We Don't Need In The Articles.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think this is necessary. The Galaxy articles are neat and easy to navigate. This would just make the Galaxy articles much smaller and closer to stubs themselves, as well as creating a lot more stubs. Not all missions would translate as well as the one you showed. What about Comet missions? They would either be extremely short or copies of other mission articles. As for your ideas to improve stubs, why not just do this to improve the sections that already exist? This proposal just seems like it would create a lot of work, with little or no gain for the wiki.
 * 2) - While I hate the repetitive nature of the galaxy articles, most of these missions will be stubs, just like most of the individual level articles floating around for the 2-D platformers. I'd rather see all the levels merged into world articles, like the Super Mario Bros. 3 coverage. I'm sure the planet parts of the galaxy articles can be cut down to make the pages less elongated and more like the Super Mario 64 articles - compact and neat, as opposed to fragmented like the separated missions will most-likely turn out.
 * 3) Per Walkazo
 * 4) - Per Walkazo, if we would split the SMG missions, then we would have to split the SM64 and SMS missions as well.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all. Splitting levels from worlds are OK, but splitting missions from levels would be a bit... stupid. I mean, there are many missions, with a similar name. That's even more likely on Comet Missions (e.g. Purple Coin Omelet from Good Egg Galaxy and Luigi's Purple Coins from Toy Time Galaxy) or Secret missions. Also, splitting missions from Galaxy means we also must split missions from 64(DS) and Sunshine, which is actually the same old story.
 * 8) - Per S-Y and Arend. If we split from SMG then we'd have to do the same with SM64 and SMS.
 * 9) - Per Walkazo

Comments
Can I please see a rough draft of one of the pages before I vote?
 * I will work on one, I will probably have it done by tomorrow or the day after and it will be linked to the proposal. 01:17, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Just remember: You cannot change your proposal three days after you propose it or later! - Remember to offer feedback about User:Marioguy1/Mariowiki:Ask the Experts! I think I'll make a proposal about it!
 * Ok.
 * Howabouts we split them as needed, split some and not others. SMB, if you can hold this proposal in a tie until I get back I might be able to whip up a starting version (or you could give it a go) of all the other articles to prove that they are not going to be stubs.
 * Splitting some but not others wouldn't work, as it would just seem inconsistent and sloppy. -
 * I don't want to do that anyway, I want to split all of the levels and add the templates and images and etc.

}}