MarioWiki:Proposals

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

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
 * 3) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 4) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite his/her own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 5) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 6) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 7) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 8) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 9) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 10) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 11) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
 * 12) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 13) If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 14) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

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

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

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

====Support====
 * 1) [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

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

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

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

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the heading.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Lakitu Travel into List of Implied Organizations (Discuss) Extended: September 1, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
 * Merge Final 5 Frenzy into Last Five Turns Event (Discuss) Deadline: August 30th, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
 * Merge KP Koopa into KP Koopas (Discuss) Deadline: September 2, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
 * Merge The Dreadnought into Dreadnought Galaxy (Discuss) Deadline: September 9, 2010 23:59 GMT.
 * Merge Chump Charity into Last Five Turns Event (Discuss) Deadline: September 9th, 2010 (24:00)
 * Merge Starfish into Starfy (Discuss) Deadline: September 12th, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.

New Features
None at the moment.

Remove Fake Templates
Recently, I have come across many userpages saying "this user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt," or something of that sort. I also have seen many fake talk page message announcements (I used to have one, I removed it today because it was dumb). These templates are stupid and pointless. Let's eradicate them once and for all!

Proposer: Voting start: 29 August 2010, 0:30 (GMT) Deadline: 5 September 2010, 23:59 (GMT)

Support

 * 1) - Before you all get mad at me for going with this proposal, just hear me out. If we don't do about it, then it can be 10x worse then fake message boxes as people could freak out at the sight of one before they read it, and then get mad depending on the user. Pointless, repeating them to one user is stupid, and etc.
 * 2) – Per proposal.
 * 3) - Templates are essentially warning signs. They aren't meant to be playthings and shouldn't be treated as such.
 * 4) - Per Edo.
 * 5) - Fake warning templates make our (sysops) job much more difficult, having to check which are real and which aren't.
 * 6) - Per Edofenrir and Tucayo.
 * 7) - I did it once and it didn't feel write. Per Edo.
 * 8) I am Zero! Per Edo. Zero signing out.
 * 9) I'm pretty sure that BLOF and LGM are only opposing because they like to give each other said templates; per all.
 * 10) LOL, it's not a surprise that BLOF and LGM are opposing, considering that they are the ones who made fake templates :D No offence *ahem* Per Edo.
 * 11) Per Edo & Tucky
 * 12) Would be acceptable if it was just a user stating that wouldn't be on for awhile. aside from that, let's have them removed.
 * 13) Per proposal and all.
 * 14) They always get in my way. Per proposal.
 * 15) Per Edo and Tucky
 * 16) We're not one of those wikis that has no serious sense at all. Remove all fake Templates.

Oppose

 * 1) I would have supported if it regards the removal of real-looking reminders, warnings, etc., but since this proposal deals with all types of fake templates, I'm forced to oppose. I believe that having fake article templates on your page is funny and it tells the viewer that you have a sense of humor, plus there's no harm in that (and since it lacks the ability to trick you with excitedness, a la fake new message box, it's less harmful than a fake new message box). I, however, do understand the tedious process required to rummage through warnings to find out which one is a real one.
 * 2) I will change my warnings after this proposal, but I don't see why people cannot have a little fun here. The fake new message box isn't 100% gone. We still tolerate the obviously fake ones, so I don't see why now we have to remove ALL fake templates. Fake templates do actually shows a bit what your personality is like, what BabyLuigiOnFire says.
 * 3) - I hate the idea of fake warning templates, but if you reread ralph's proposal, this proposal will not just get rid of fake warning templates. This proposal is proposing to get rid of fake templates period. So the fake templates that are juvenile and cause no harm to the users of the wiki and no extra work for the admins is included in that. Let me explain what is considered a template; fake image tags, fake rewrite tags, fake tense tags, fake infoboxes and fake navboxes. Sorry but I can't live without these templates. If you change your proposal to mean the warning templates only, I will support but I refuse to support something that prevents me from adding an infobox to my user page.
 * 4) Per MG1s comment below. This proposal makes it so INFOBOXES are also removed. But fake rewrite templates are even more annoying and unfunny than fake warnings so the proposal should be remove fake maintenance templates (like this userpage needs images)
 * 5) There is no reason to remove templates like the infobox templates on userpages. Per Marioguy1.
 * 6) Wait what? Infoboxes? No way!

Comments
I understand all of those fake templates that do not alter the content of the actual one at all, but I'll laugh at anyone who gets fooled by a fake template with different text and/or a different color. It's like the fake new message box template. I'll probably enforce the removal of fake templates that look exactly the same as the actual one, but not the one where its content gets altered, such as text, size, or words.

If this is about removing fake templates that look genuine, I'll support. Otherwise, no. I don't see the harm about obviously fake templates other than being "stupid and pointless", which is still your opinion.

Maybe you don't see any harm done, but the ones who have to work with those templates and issue blocks on their base sure do. Warnings are an indicator for how a user behaves in the community. They are there to help identifying trouble-makers. If you add fake-warnings into the mix, you make the job of those who have to keep any eye on those trouble-makers needlessly tedious. I for one have better things to do than staying on a talk page and identifying which warning is valid and which is a bad joke, when all I want to do is simply count them. It may be funny for you (for whatever reason), but it's respectless towards others. -
 * But what's your opinion on warnings or reminders when the content gets altered? I told you, I understand those real-looking templates, but how about ones where the words that normally are in a reminder gets replaced? Or when pictures of warnings are altered?
 * I still do not see the harm done in obviously fake reminders/warnings. I tend to read the warnings anyway to see what the person had done to receive it. I understand real-looking fake ones, because you cannot tell the difference unless you look in the contributions/template HTML. Those ones I cannot distinguish by reading are the ones that should be the pain in the butt, not the obviously fake ones.
 * When I search for previous warnings in pages, I mainly look for the little warning sign images. If you put 20 fake warnings on your page which all have that image, it becomes incredibly annoying to have to search for and read all of them to keep track of how many actual warnings the user in question has. It forces me to dig through all of the page(s) and search for little wording differences to make sure I don't accidentally read a fake warning as a real one. It also confuses new users, who don't have enough experience to identify those warnings as fake. All in all, fake warnings do reflect bad on the user who has them, and I'd advise them to remove them. -
 * I for one don't understand warnings. I mean i know that the ones given to you by sysops and patrollers are 100% accurate. But what about userbased ones? Some users don't know the rules of the wikis so much so they might overreact to a certian offense and give them a warning. I remember Larryman as a particular person who did that. So I want to know the rules of warnings. Is it also ok to make a proposal on a unanimous rules about warnings?


 * @Edofenrir: Oh, me too. Who doesn't like that little warning sign? How about we replace the picture? Like say, a Wario head, or something. We are all image learners.


 * One more thing, how about fake templates (fake rewrites) on userpages? After all, we are not allowed to have them real ones, and if there is a real one, there will be a category on the bottom of the page. But, yeah, looking at them at a glance will confuse you. I understand that procedure.


 * By the way, I started this entire fake warning thing. :( I'm sorry. I wasn't intending to be bad. I was just fooling around with other users.

I tend to read the whole warning template, not just look for the image. I never saw an instance where there are 20 warnings on a page. I would assume that most are fake, but I'll still take a look. Warnings don't take that long to read. How about other fake templates, like fake block templates? Most of the time, there are only one block template. I made my block template super-obvious that it is fake. Where's an instance where a fake warning template confuses a new user? I'm pretty sure every user that gets warned for "being himself" knows that this is a joke. Even then, the person who issued this warning can say this is a fake.
 * New users are new to HTML (most of the time) and they don't understand it (me, I don't get it, but I know how to use it). They would probably want to mimic you and place an actual block template on their page. Not everyone is like you. Me, I'd go for the image, not the text. I scan stuff, not look over them, since I'm pretty busy.
 * Well, the original question is if those templates are disrupting, and as one who has to work with them daily I can say: Yes, they are. Most other people who have to work with them agree that they are distracting. You might say they aren't, based on that you sometimes read some warning templates for fun, but please keep in mind that we aren't doing this for fun. It is our job to keep this site running smoothly. In order to do that, we have to keep our eyes on many users at once. We don't have the luxury to spend big chunks of our time on one userpage to sort out warnings. The warning system was introduced to help us, who have to identify and block trouble-makers, and toying around with that system, even without any ill intent, is disruptive and makes our job harder. We merely ask you to consider that. -
 * Again, do these fake templates (fake rewrite, fake FA, fake image) count? You only regarded warnings and reminders.
 * They aren't as distracting as fake warnings, but I honestly see no point in having them on your page. It's not very funny, they don't tell us anything about you, and they are generally useless. They don't cause any harm other than making our userbase look immature, though, so if you can live with that... -
 * Eh, I personally don't use them, but I find them a little bit hilarious, but humor is defined in the eyes of the perceiver, so I respect your opinion. But this proposal is dealing with ALL fake templates. Not just the warning ones.
 * Edofenrir, I want to know if you can tolerate fake warnings with a fake pictures and weird colors. There are people that find the fake templates funny and others do not. I'm not supporting this proposal until it can satisfy the people that find fake templates funny and others (like you) that think otherwise.

Though I haven't gotten the time to read this whole discussion, I'm agreeing with Edofenrir on this. It's annoying when you have to find which warnings are fake and which are real.

I agree with Edo. It is a bit annoying. However, if the image in the warning is replaced.(the ! sign). Then maybe that's okay.

Supporters: This proposal is about removing ALL fake templates, not just fake warnings, even if the templates have replaced pictures, colors, and text.

If this proposal passes, how are we going to eradicate the fake templates in talk pages without stirring attention to the user with the talk page? There has to be a way.
 * Well, I've been having a lot of fun with the listgrouprights page and I found that if a bot marks an edit as minor on a user talk page, there is no new messages box. So if the 'crats promote themselves (or other users) to bots, it won't notify the users.
 * But that only means bureaucrats can do this. Why can't we notify to the user that "your fake warning message was removed due to a proposal, blah blah blah."?
 * 1. No, it doesn't, bureaucrats can promote other users to Bot. Then the other users can do it and it would only take a day. 2. Um...maybe because just two comments ago you were saying "There has to be a way"? I suggested an alternative, forgive me for answering your question.
 * I was wondering of a better alternative than that I suggested.

Um, about an hour of work with maybe one or two bots is not a bad alternative.

@Users making Assumptions: I'm only opposing because this proposal deals with ALL templates, NOT JUST warning templates. If it were about ONLY WARNING TEMPLATES and TEMPLATES THAT LOOK REAL this would have gained my support, but TEMPLATES THAT OBVIOUSLY LOOK FAKE will get removed as well.
 * Well warnings, real or fake, are not toys. If you want to spam eachother with Wario's butt, fine, but don't make it harder on the admins by using warnings.
 * OK, I reread the proposal and it is proposing to remove all fake templates. Period. This includes all those tags on user's pages and, more importantly, the infoboxes on user's pages. I think the infoboxes are actually pretty fun to have on a user page and I have seen plenty of users with them, they are good. But they are, nonetheless, templates and will have to be removed if this propoal passes. Likewise all navboxes will have to be removed as well as they are also templates. @ralph: If you don't mean this, please specify it in your proposal.
 * To be more specific, the following supporters of this proposal will have to remove their fake infoboxes and/or navboxes,, , , , , , and . By extent, a lot more would have to. But at the moment, only those users will have to remove the hard work they put into creating a user page. Other than that, many other users have fake infoboxes on their userpages and will have to go back on that hard work as well.

I suggest we put this proposal down, and then just make a new one to only get rid of fake warnings. Unless it's not too late to alter the proposal... I see no reason to get rid of fake rewrite templates and stuff on userpages.
 * Actually it's possible. He can still edit this proposal until some time August 31st. If he edits it, I will move my vote back to support but if not, I don't like this proposal at all.

Also, what actually qualifies as a "fake" template? Do the user-made infoboxes on userpages count, as Booderdash brought up in his vote?

Yes, it does ALL fake article templates. FF65 umm maybe you should read the discussion again, Edo said fake rewrite templates are unneccary and make the wiki look immature.
 * This proposal affects all fake templates. An infobox is a template. Ralph has not specified a certain type of template. Therefore it affects all templates, immature or not. I personally like the infobox concept, it's a nice way to organize your stats. But this proposal will remove it all and I will not support that.

OK, I have updated it. It now applies only to fake TP messages and fake warnings/bans.

Can you add all fake MAINTENANCE templates too? I'm pretty sure fake TP messages are already banned though.
 * They are but this proposal is still allowed, it passes the 28d limit. Anyways, I don't really find those annoying or harmful, do you?

This proposal was edited after the three-day limit had passed, (rule 9) so it has to be reverted to the state it was in beforehand. I went ahead and changed everyone's votes back to how they were as of this revision so that nobody ended up voting for the side of the proposal they didn't agree with. However, I left the comments as they were as of this revision. I'm aware that this is a less than ideal situation, but it has to happen per the rules. I'm sorry.
 * Srry about that, my time was EST, the wiki doesn't use EST X_X. Anyways, the rules still say ralph can contact a sysop to get it deleted and then make a new one so...

Removing Did You Know
I haven't been on the MarioWiki in a while, but I know there have been quite a few proposals for the main page. But I have yet another one, this time on the trivia section of the main page "Did You Know?". I have never understood the purpose of this section, as all it's for is to state bland info about random games, characters, etc. I doubt anybody is interested in it, and quite frankly, since it's updated every week, there is so little trivia left. And if you guys were willing to remove the featured images, I don't see why you wouldn't want to remove this.

Proposer: Voting start: 29 August, 2010, 13:00 GMT Deadline: 5 September, 2010, 24:00 GMT

Support

 * 1) Since I propoposed the proposed proposal, I suport the proposal I proposed.
 * 2) Pretty useless. I never found it interesting anyways. Its trivia are usually obvious. And t only changes ONCE PER WEEK, which means we see the same old pieces of trivia which takes 2 seconds to digest and remember.

Oppose

 * 1) It has interesting pieces of trivia and is the perfect thing for it's place. I feel nothing else would be fitting or more satisfying in that position. Why remove it, it's pointless to remove it and what else do you suggest should go there?
 * 2) Well, what do you think we should replace it with? When you remove something from the Main Page, you have to replace it with something else, not to mention it has some trivia that may interest some Users. If you think it is bland, then do not look at it, no one said you had to.
 * 3) Before I signed up here, I always look the DYK for new and interesting information. I always thought it was interesting, until I am usually doing the job of updating it. Why remove it? It's interesting and pretty informative.
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) - Nonsense. what would we use. Everytime, when i was a guest for a bit and always tested what the trivia was. It's excellent the way it is.
 * 6) I am Zero! I get your point, but, no. Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per all. With a capital PER ALL.
 * 8) I like some off the good ones. Maybe they could update it more often.
 * 9) – Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) I do enjoy looking at DYK but some things in it are pretty LAME. I'm still opposing.

Comments
What will replace it?
 * Umm.... I'm not sure. If it's removed, a pretty small part will be left, so I don't know what we could replace it with. And even if a large space was left, it wouldn't make much of a difference, since I still wouldn't know what to replace it with.
 * Well, since the FIs were removed. Then why not this. Sounds pointless to me. There is no need to replace it.

I don't see a reason to remove this template if it's not going to be replaced.
 * Does it need to be replaced? I mean, if you think it needs to be replaced, suggest something.

What about the old window that shows article needing rewrite and talk pages needing answers?

Awwwwww. :( Why should it be replaced? What would fill its postion? I for one rather like the random, interesting trivia.

Well, I don't know if this can be possible. But what about a quiz? About random trivias? This will be much better then picking random trivias and placing them there.

@Booderdash: Not everyone is online every day. It is good to have the trivia for a whole week so anyone who comes on during the week can read it.

Ff65, still, the trivia are usually never interesting and are either extremly obscure and unneedd or rather obvious. Most of the GOOD trivia like the SMG (which is also a type of machine gun lol) boss music were removed.

Hey, I find some of that trivia pretty interesting. Not everyone can agree with you, it's your opinion. And there's no reason to remove something (without replacing it) that isn't really that bad. It's better to have the DYN than to have nothing at all in its place.

Changes
None at the moment.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.