Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done.
- Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
- "Vote" periods last for one week.
- All past proposals are archived.
|
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 {{user|User name}}. Signing with the signature code ~~~(~) is not allowed due to technical issues.
How To
- Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
- Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
- Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
- Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
- Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
- Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
- At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
- "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
- 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.
- 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.
- Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
- 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than sixty (60) days old.
The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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 Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
CURRENTLY: 02:03, 29 May 2024 (EST)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
Courses based on Courses
Hey everyone it's User:MC Hammer Bro. again. This time I've noticed things like Super Smash Bros. stages and Mario Kart courses that share names with courses in games that they are based off of. Mainly I noticed how Article: Tick Tock Clock, course 14 in Super Mario 64 is seperate from Tick Tock Clock (course) but...Rainbow Ride from Super Mario 64 and Rainbow ride (Rainbow cruise) stage from Super Smash Bros. Melee are in the same articel. So my question is show the articles be merged or seperated?
Proposer: MC Hammer Bro. (talk)
Dedline: March 26, 2009, 17:00
Split 'em up
- Courses of the same name from different games should stay split because, well, they have their own qualities.Besides, SSB stages are usually a "very rough" version of the real stage. Goldguy (talk)
- Zafum (talk) - I think it would be crazy to merge these together, because they really are two different things. I mean, wouldn't it be confusing if you clicked rainbow ride on a template trying to get to the ssbm level, but went to the sm64 world instead? Of course you would have it on that page, but not as the main thing, but as a side subject. I say we Split 'em up.
Merge 'em together
- Tucayo (talk) - I say merge, beacuse they're supposed to be the same place
- Son of Suns (talk) - I would merge article titles that have the same name. As we now seperate history sections by appearances, articles could have section titles for each game the topic appears in. For example, Luigi's Mansion could have a section under the title "Luigi's Mansion," then a section titled "Mario Kart series" with the Luigi's Mansion from Mario Kart, which would then state the differences between the original and the MK versions. Finally, the article could have a "Mario Tennis" section for the mansion's appearance in Mario Power Tennis.
- Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per SoS.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per SoS.
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per SoS.
- Grapes (talk) - Per SoS.
- MC Hammer Bro. (talk)- Per Sos. It's a great idea and I guess there are more articles with this delemas than I though.
- Lu!g! (talk).-i think merge for the same reasons as SoS but also some articles are very small and even if we merge all of their realated articles it still wont be nealy as song as say... mario's article so yes MERGE!! DEFINATELY MEEEEERRGE!!!
- Yoshario (talk) - Per SoS.
- Yoshi Boo 118 (talk) - Per SoS.
- Sonic64 (talk) - I think that we should merge all articles on the same topic. However, we should not go as far as merging Rainbow Ride with Rainbow Road, only articles on things with little to no notable differences, like the Mario Circuits.
- Randoman123456789 (talk) - Per Son of Suns.
- YourBuddyBill (talk) - i like sos's idea. per above.
- Betaman (talk) - Per SoS.
Zafum: It will take you to both things, so i dont see whats wrong Tucayo (talk)
- Also, links can be directed to sections, instead of the top of the article. So say you specifically want to link to the Luigi's Mansion in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. You simply turn the link into [[Luigi's Mansion#Super Smash Bros. Brawl|Luigi's Mansion]] and you will go straight to the Smash Bros. info, passing by the other sections. -- Son of Suns (talk)
Idk, it just seems......as a "bad example" to new users.Who knows, probanly they'll say, "OMG y don't they put seperate articles 4 it!ZOMG they suck!!!lol.I'm leaving." or something like that.Ninja Yoshi (talk)
- Well that would be their loss, now wouldn't it? You can't always get what you want, and if you storm off just because you disagree with some policy somewhere then you're gonna be unhappy for a very long time; it's better to just be flexible. - Walkazo (talk)
Worlds and levels
YBB again, Im noticing that some games have all of the levels of a world on the world's page, like 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 are all on the same page as World 7, but with other games, worlds just have links to level pages, like Chocolate Island and Chocolate Secret. Should we merge them all together, or split them apart? Note that this is relevant to pipeprojects.
Proposer: YourBuddyBill (talk)
Deadline: 17:00 Thursday, April 3, 2009
Merge
YourBuddyBill (talk) It is much easier to see all of the info, and it cuts down on stubs.
Split
- Son of Suns (talk) - Levels are independently named, even if only by number. Each level contains a WEALTH of information - to cut down on stubs people should actually expand these level articles instead of creating one-sentence articles for the sake of creating one-sentence articles. Merging the levels doesn't solve the stub problem, as the world article would still lack A LOT of information and would just be a stub of a larger size. Level articles can then be linked by a profile template similar to the ones already in use by Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island level articles in order to organize the different level articles.
- YourBuddyBill (talk) Sos has a good point.
- Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per SoS.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Beta Enemies
I dont know where to put this but here goes.
I propose we create a page for all beta enemies, including stats, behavior, psychopath thoughts etc. and redirect drill bit (the only beta enemy with a page bcause it was accidentaly left in a cutscene (smithy! reember your blood pressure!)) to this page we could add a link 2 drill bit on the page AND if possible, the action replay codes used to access some of these beta enemies. Im sure interested in anything beta. Rite nao, the info is scattered about the beta elements page and pages of similar enemies.
Proposer: YourBuddyBill (talk)
Deadline: 17:00 Monday, March 31, 2009
Make Beta Enemy Page
- YourBuddyBill- Ill take out the part about drill bit. we could just add alink to the page to drill bit
- Yoshario (talk) - per ybb
- Ninja Yoshi (talk) - This can make extra pages.Extra Pages = better example for guests = MOAR users = better articles.
Do Not Make Beta Enemy Page
Son of Suns (talk) - I oppose redirecting Drill Bit to any page. It's a character that appeared in the game and should keep its own article.Yoshario (talk) - Per Son of Sons, they are still enemies.- I'd prefer to see Beta Elements sorted by game. To me, it seems a largely arbitrary distinction to separate beta enemies from the rest of the main beta article. Especially so when considering that all the other information on that page would remain as it is. A subsection under the relevant game's section of the page would work equally well. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Twentytwofiftyseven. Keeping all the beta information pertaining to each game together in one place is the most effective way at presenting the info to the readers. Also, if the enemies get their own seperate page, why not beta items, beta characters and beta locations? Regardless of how much info there is about them, enemies are no more important than anything else on that beta elements page, so separating them and nothing else seems wrong.
Fixed. ;) And I would like to know all the stuff about them too, but separate pages for each enemy is rather tedious, in my opinion. Maybe not, but I would like it if we could know more about them. Bloc Partier (talk)
Did Son of Suns vote in the wrong place? He said he wanted to keep separate pages; yet voted in do not make separate pages. Or am I reading it wrong? --Yoshario (talk)
- Oh, never mind, I read it twice, and I understand now. =D Yoshario (talk)
- The proposal states we should create one page for all enemies. Bloc Partier labeled the sections incorrectly. (Not his fault, original proposer did not format anything right.) I fixed it-- Son of Suns (talk)
sorry, the directions are a bit complicated 4 me
YourBuddyBill (talk)
- If you remove the Drill Bit part of proposal, leaving it as its own page and linking to it, I will remove my oppose. -- Son of Suns (talk)
I do think that YBB has a point, though, since it does have to do with the beta enemy being notable or not. Plus, a list is always good as an easy directory for articles. Then again, a category would do that job also. Yoshario (talk)
thing is, not every one HAS an article. theyre just meshed together on the beta elements page with tidbits on other pages YourBuddyBill (talk)
Yoshario, I believe YBB is proposing to create ONE page to cover all Beta enemies, which right now have content in different places, not their own articles (nor is YBB proposing to give them each articles). Drill Bit is unique for being an enemy that appeared in the game but is also a beta enemy, as it was given stats but never used in battle. Hope that clears things up. -- Son of Suns (talk)
So its not just a list, but an article that has the information on Beta Enemies instead of separate articles? I think that would be good. But then, would we still cover unused Drill Bit information in that article? --Yoshario (talk)
- OOps, I did read it wrong. The poor grammar threw me off. :P But yeah, one page sounds great. Bloc Partier (talk)
- To Yoshario - yep, one Beta Enemies page (there are no separate articles). Drill Bit would probably have a section with a "main article" link to Drill Bit. The Drill Bit article should cover everything, while the Drill Bit entry in a proposed Beta Enemies page would give a summary of the subject Drill Bit as related to the article subject - Beta Enemies. -- Son of Suns (talk)
Alright, I like that idea, better remove my oppose. Yoshario (talk)
Instead of creating another page, how about having a sub section in the Beta Elements page? They would classify in that category, but would things get a little too complicated? Super-Yoshi (talk)
- Yes, that looks better Tucayo (talk)
