MarioWiki talk:Proposals

Discussion archives
Archive 1 (1-67)

Autoconfirmed

Does a user not have to be autoconfirmed to vote in a TPP? 27Burst27 (Talk) voted on my proposal, but he just joined today and therefore, is not autoconfirmed. (Also, I'm not sure his vote is valid). I was going to delete his vote, but I wanted to make sure first.
Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 11:32, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

Rule 2: Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in or vote on proposals. So, yes, only autoconfirmed users can vote on proposals.--^(TALK) 11:35, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

Curse you, Lugwig :P It's nice that they're willing to participate, but yeah, their vote is invalid. 11:37, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

I guess I lose a supporter. I'll go ahead and delete the vote and tell them on their Talk Page.

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 11:38, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

I don't know if this rule applies to TPPs Ray Trace^(T|C) 17:40, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

Rule 2 of TPPs: All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals [...] --

07:09, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

Cancelling a Proposal

I made a proposal and within 12 hours it is being opposed very strongly, with 10 opposers and 2 supporters. How do I cancel this proposal? -YoshiFlutterJump (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

Just do it if rules allow it. Archive it by moving contents (cut and paste). Don't forget {{ProposalOutcome}}. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 14:58, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

You can delete a proposal so long as it is within the first three days of its creation. Alternatively, you can ask an admin to do it for you, so long as you have a good reason to do so. Your proposal must also be archived as it is on the main proposals page. 15:14, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

I just archived it; did I do it correctly? -YoshiFlutterJump (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

You used the wrong outcome, but I corrected that. Otherwise, looks fine. 16:04, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

Also, you didn't give a short description of the proposal on MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive, which TheFlameChomp did for you. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

What are the sections for?

This talk page or section has a conflict or a question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

In all of my time here, I don't think I've ever completely understood what each section for proposals are for. Besides the Writing Guidelines section, which is well-defined per the proposal that created it, I have many questions regarding the way the page is divided. What is a "new feature"? What's the difference between a change and a removal? When should something go under miscellaneous? If I make a proposal that may or may not change a current yet minor standard, where should that go? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 08:54, 24 August 2017 (EDT)

Based on their names, "new feature" would refer to, well, a new feature that the proposer wants implemented into the Mario Wiki, like a new template or something. A "change" is adjusting one or more things to fit a certain requirement, and a "removal" is the outright deletion of something (though the two could probably be split, if that's what you're referring to). "Miscellaneous" is anything else. Your supposed proposal would likely go under "change". 21:50, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

So, we have sections for adding something brand new, changing something on the wiki, completely removing something, and literally everything else (also Writing Guidelines, but again setting that aside). Is it just me, or does the Changes section seem way too broad? All merges and splits would be slotted under it, as would editing the content of policy/help pages and much more. It seems like that overlaps too much with the miscellaneous section's purpose. For the record, the proposal I had in mind for the "minor standard" bit was the Mario's Time Machine proposal that I ended up slotting under Miscellaneous. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Rule 8

Rule 8 states that any proposal with three votes or less meets "NO QUORUM". Does the proposer's vote(s) count? I'm asking for my proposal here.
Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 22:12, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

The proposer's vote is treated like any other vote. In the Special Attack proposal's case, there are four votes, so it wouldn't be classified as a no quorum. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Rule 7 (RP)

"No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." I think this should be changed to "No proposal can be created to overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.", so that it is clear what is meant by this statement (as a proposal can be created during that time, but ends after the 4 week limit as with what was decided with this). Yoshi the SSM (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

The Comment Glitch

Everyone knows about the glitch where the comments section shows up as raw code instead of a header, right? Placing any sort of code under the header fixes the glitch. So should we add some sort of code underneath the header to the copy-and-paste template?
Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 23:04, 20 November 2017 (EST)

I remember that Walkazo put this code:   on the bottom of the proposal page to fix it (also it still parses together despite me putting a nowiki tag.... Ray Trace^(T|C) 00:12, 21 November 2017 (EST)

Conjectural in headers

This proposal is listed as a change that has not been implemented, but I can't find a single article with {{conjectural}} in a header.
Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 22:08, 2 December 2017 (EST)

I think the idea is that the rule is not written down anywhere, though I cannot confirm that. (On a side note, you need to include <nowiki> tags around the template so that the link works.) Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:09, 2 December 2017 (EST)

It is, actually. The exact wording is: To avoid unsightliness and problems with linking, headers themselves do not use the template, however the first line of each section should repeat the name in boldface and using {{conjectural}}, in the form: {{conjectural|Glitch name}} I see no reason why that proposal should be there. I'm going to go ahead and take it down.

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 22:12, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Fair enough. The archive must not have been updated, then. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:14, 2 December 2017 (EST)