MarioWiki:Proposals

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}}.

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 their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
6. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
14. 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.
15. 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 you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''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.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====

====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 "#{{User|[add your username here]}} 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 "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} 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 {{TPP}} 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 Pale Piranha into Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Passed
• Split Template:Fakelink from Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Passed
• Merge DK Bongos into Nintendo GameCube. (Discuss) Deadline: April 24 2010, 24:00
• Merge Wii Wheel into Wii. (Discuss) Deadline: April 25 2010, 24:00
• Merge Shooting Star Summit into Star Hill. (Discuss) Deadline: April 28 2010, 24:00
• Merge Super Mario RPG 2 into Paper Mario/Beta elements. (Discuss) Deadline: April 29 2010, 24:00
• Delete the quote in Bob Hoskins. (Discuss) Deadline: April 30 2010, 24:00
• Split Template:Fakelink from Sherbet Land. (Discuss) Deadline: May 2nd 2010, 24:00
• Move Super Mushroom information to Super Mushroom. (Discuss) Deadline: May 4, 2010, 24:00
• Split the fan made/nintendo-made microgames and contests in WarioWare: D.I.Y. into separate pages. (Discuss) Deadline: May 7 2010, 24:00

New Features

Revising Nomination Process of Images

We had this situation with images several times, and that's ok because they are made by different users. But then, we had times where the same people nominate an image that failed dozens of times (eg Avalanche! image). I propose that within a 1 month time period, the nominator who nominated an image that failed should not nominate it again. Any nominator who violates this rule will get their nomination deleted. This will not flood the nomination page with people making the same complaints about it being featured again and again! This should not apply to other users nominating the image, because they may not know the image they nominated had been put down previously.

Proposer: BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Voting Starts: Monday, April 5, 23:17
Deadline: Monday, April 12, 23:59 GMT Extended: April 19, 2010, 23:59 April 26, 2010, 23:59

Support

1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Who likes to see a nomination that JUST failed be placed up again by the EXACT same user who nominated it previously?
2. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Not a bad idea.... alright I guess I'll go for it, you got my vote. Zero signing out.
3. Turkishcoffee (talk) Per my comment.
4. Ralphfan (talk) – Per BabyLuigiOnFire.
5. Raphaelraven497 (talk) per all
6. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all.
7. Wet Bowser (talk) Per all.
8. Commander Code-8 (talk) The same thing's happening with Featured Articles, so why can't it happen here.

Oppose

1. Time Q (talk): I just don't think this rule is necessary. See my comment below.
2. KS3 (talk) Per Time Q and LGM's comment. EDIT: I made an article to change part of the FI process and Tucayo came here and said that if I don't delete my proposal the FI process will go onto hiatus.
3. MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per Time Q.
4. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per Time Q.
5. Marioguy1 (talk) - Why are you complaining? If the image failed before by a large amount then there's a pretty good chance it's gonna fail again. If it failed by a small amount, maybe you should look back at the image and think, maybe it isn't so bad after all...after all, it only failed by a small amount so everyone must have had a reason - it must be worthy.
6. Edofenrir (talk) - Per Marioguy1
7. Marcelagus (talk) - I don't see a point in this. Many images failed the first time and succeeded the second time; I've nominated such an image, which has now gained featured status.
8. Reversinator (talk) Per all.
9. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per all.
10. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per all.

Comments

Hey, every time I nominated the Avalanche! picture there was a 1-2 month period of time between each nomination. KS3 (talk)

and I only nominated it twice.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KS3 (talk).

No. It JUST failed and you happened to renominate it again. You should hear their complaints. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

When??? KS3 (talk)

I can't exactly give you proof or when, but ask the people who usually vote on the FI page. Well, let me get this straight: First, it was nominated by iforgotwho (no offense), then, you renominated it for a fresh start. Then, when it failed, you renominated it, saying "Great resolution: 4535 × 3000, depicts of the characters skiing through snow. (If you enlarge it, you can actually see the tracks made by Mario.)" BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Raphaelraven398: Remember to place your vote back up when the voting period starts (I hate that when that happens to, but we gotta deal with it) BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

KS3: Before I deleted your vote, you mentioned some other picture. The thing is, the poor user who nominated it didn't know it was just put down. In this case, however, you happened to renominate the image JUST as it failed. It's just not right. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Blame it on Nintendo. If Nintendo didn't make that minigame this whole "argument" wouldn't exist. KS3 (talk)

Blame it on Nintendo? Without Nintendo this wiki wouldn't even exist. Anyways, I think we should extend that time where you can't re-nominate a failed image to at least one month or two. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

I was thinking about a month, but I thought it would be too long. You made me reconsider this; I'll change it. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

So what; after one month the picture is just going to appear again. The 1 month wait seems a little too short. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Think about how long and boring one month is. Why won't you say the rule of new users that can't create pages? They can wait to vandalize it as well. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I think this proposal is a good idea, just to point out. It might be hard to keep track of which nominations are going through because there are so many, but I can see this working with effort being put into it. Also, I'd like to suggest making the waiting time either 28 days or 56 days; both are intervals of 7 and are the closest to 1 month or two months (respectively) that are easy to track on a calendar. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

We can do this. I'm pretty sure about that. Ok, I change the date once more. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

So, if different people alternately nominate the same image constantly, it's alright? I feel it would just be too easy to exploit this system. However, we do need to try something different, so I don't want to vote against this. Turkishcoffee (talk)

Well, I had thought this issue, but few people deliberately team up and try to nominate images like that. But if just delete nominations because it was nominated already, it wouldn't be nice to the people who didn't know that. Besides, several images that got put down ended up getting featured, so we can't just make a no-renominating rule. Again, this isn't as major as vandalism, but it can be very annoying. We can probably make another rule where you can't repeatedly nominate the same images over and over even past expiration date.

I'm not saying that this WILL be prevented, but it will discourage silly nominations like the Avalanche image. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Okay, so what you're looking to do is stop frivolous nominations by the same person, not actually prevent the same image from being brought up again and again. I have a vauge idea for how a system could work, but I might need to review the actual process first. Your proposal would work for preventing silly nominations, I think, but I shudder to think who would be tasked with keeping track of them. I'll support it now that I know it's intent. Turkishcoffee (talk)

I can do it. I'm pretty good at keeping track of stuff and I'm super active on this wiki. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I don't know. This proposal seems somewhat unnecessary to me. I really don't know why people make such a fuss about the FIs. Why can't we just have a funny, little page where you can vote whether you like an image or not? Why set up more and more rules? If someone re-nominates an image that just failed, it will probably be voted down in the next week. What's the problem? Maybe it's just me, but we shouldn't ban something just because it's "annoying". Time Q (talk)

I don't think this proposal is necessary either. If an image is going go be renominated, chances are, it's just going to get put down again. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

I know images nominated again will fail again. But we don't appreciate it. You should see the people's reactions to that page when it was nominated twice in a row. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

@Commander Code-8: The proposal said that it will not affect other users nominating the same picture after it was deleted, but the FA proposal said that it affects everyone. KS3 (talk)

D.I.Y. Microgames, Comics, etc.

I noticed that there aren't much information about Wario Ware D.I.Y. stuff. The starting microgames aren't talked about much, nor is comicsa mentioned, neither are records. We should make a page for each microgame like the others, and make articles for each comic or record; or at the very least, list them in a table. - Koopster

Removals

None at the moment

Changes

None at the moment

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.