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. Any 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 with the signature code ~~~(~). 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) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community. A user calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights). So for example, 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 indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. CURRENTLY: 09:00, 26 May 2024 (EDT) New Features No current proposals. Removals Changes FA Support The FA system was replaced numerous times, only to go back to the same flawed system. No mistake has been corrected that a supporter must give a reason to support, and I have seen many users support saying "I like character he should be an FA". Well, no longer. Plumber 00:46, 29 September 2007 (EDT) Deadline: 20:00, Oct. 5 Support Plumber Reasons above Oppose Son of Suns - Just because an article is nominated doesn't mean it will become an FA. If it is not FA worthy, opposers will oppose, and if supporters do not change the article, the nomination will eventually be dropped. The rules state that inactive nominations will be deleted in a month. You need to have more patience - the FA process takes a long time. It's not even October yet. And it's not a big deal to have a few nominations. All a support means is that you agree with the FA requirements. Are you proposing someone just lists all the qualities already listed on the FA page? We would then have to remove every sigle support vote right now, because not everyone is listing every single criteria. It doesn't make sense to have to provide a reason to support, cause all your reasons are already listed on the FA page. All a support means is that you will work on the article. If you don't - oh well, the article does not become an FA and the nomination is eventually deleted. Comments So I'm clear, your's proposing that users have better reasons for voting on FAs, right? -- Chris 01:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT) You are not clear enough, if you mean that support vote for FA should have a better reason, I deffinatelly agree. Glowsquid Maybe make to were we don't need to make comments but take out the supports like "Bowser rules", "Long live King K Rool", "Who doesn't Love Daisy?" ETC. XzelionETC Maybe they both support the article and like the character. Some supports even say this article isn't very good, but it could be, and we allow those. Maybe supports just shouldn't have reasons next to them? -- Son of Suns I mean that a support vote for an FA should have a valid reason like our proposals need a valid reason to support. Plumber 21:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT) X's right let's take down those votes User:Mr. Guy It's not just America This is something that upsets me greatly almost everywhere, not just on this site; people seem to assume that the only place where games are released in English is America. In most of the profiles here, things are said to have happened in "the American version." I want this stopped; it's not fair on other English-speaking countries. It should be refferred to as the "English version," or at the very least, "the American and European version." Proposer: Davidk92 Deadline: 21:26 EDT Support Davidk92 - My reasons given above. File:MiniMario.pngMinimariolover10 TALK TO ME ABOUT MINIES!!Yeah. Either though I do live in USA, a lot of users are still from Europe! It's not like USA is the only country that has the internet. Super Yoshi10 02:34, 29 September 2007 (EDT): I agree with you two because for example I live in Australia and in the mario party series koopa kid is called mini bowser! Oppose My Bloody Valentine There are differances between the American and PAL (Australia and Europe) games. Stumpers! From a research standpoint, to say that something is true in the European version just because it's true in the American version is a falsity, like DP says above. I know it feels like users like me have forgotten about Europe, but as we only play the American versions, you really can't point fingers. Whenever you see something that's true in the PAL versions as well, I hope you'll change it to say: American and PAL versions. Everyone's just contributing what they know about, so represent Europe for us, ok? Oh, and on a side note, no, I'm not coming back from hiatus yet. Just checking up on things. Cobold (talk · contribs) - The versions are indeed different, just check Luigi's Mansion. The PAL version can be noted at some points, but the problem is that it has many different languages which may all have different names. Walkazo - Per above, the two versions are often different, and if they're not, it should say "Engish version". Also, us Canadians get the American games too, so it's not really the United States version, but the North America version, just so you know. Plumber Per Stumpers. Comments "Representing" Many articles say they look similar or represent when just because they are the same representing species. For an example, Sidestepper's trivia says that they resemble Dovo, however they don't. Dovos do not like anything like a Sidestepper, and they probably weren't even remembering Sidesteppers when making the game. Sure, some represent other things, but not most of them. I'm saying to remove the trivia that says that they represent these that aren't truly representing. Proposper: Minimariolover10 Deadline: 11:59 PM EDT Support File:MiniMario.pngMinimariolover10 TALK TO ME ABOUT MINIES!! My reasons given above Oppose Son of Suns - I don't think this is worthy of a proposal. If you feel something doesn't look like something else, just remove the trivia, or debate it on the talk page. A lot of enemies do resemble each other, and the Super Mario Wiki attempts to make connections between enemies and games. Glowsquid - What SOS said. Cobold (talk · contribs) - This should be decided separately for each case. Also, Trivia sections should be limited to a minimum. Plumber Per Cobold Walkazo - Per SOS and Cobold. YELLOWYOSHI398 – Per SoS and Cobold. Your Dovo/Sidestepper thing was a good example of a possibly unnecessary Trivia entry, but it's probably something that shouldn't be taken to Proposals. Comments Yes, I know, but in some cases it isn't connecting. File:MiniMario.pngMinimariolover10 TALK TO ME ABOUT MINIES!!And about it not being worthy, I want other users to know SOME don't look similar so they could clear it if another doing this job is missing it. Therefore you should be bold. Not everything needs a proposal. Make the changes you feel are correct. -- Son of Suns Subsized Categorys Every once in a while, a category that can have too few enteries shows up. Such as Category:X-Naut's Weapons (Though it's deleted), so I think that those should be prevented like stub articles. Proposer: Lario Deadline: 20:00, 22 September 2007 Prevent Them Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E This is important Keep Them They are still categories. I think that stuff like that should exist if it's not only one article.  Caps Lock LORD 13:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT) Comments I think we should just do a case by case basis, like new articles. We ask: "Is there enough for its inclusion?" There's no way to prevent someone from creating categories - we just have to decide if they are needed when it happens. I don't think this proposal can do much, so I am not voting either way. -- Son of Suns I agree. - Walkazo Improvement Drive Idea I think we should have a project similar to Featured Articles and the Pipe Plaza, where, instead of pointing out the best articles, we point out the ones that need Work, so users can all work on one project, instead of everyone editing the "featured article" status ones, and leaving articles like Doopliss un-edited. The process would be similar to Featured Articles. We make a new page about the project, where we come together and list the articles we think are shortest, but have potential. Then, we might make a box on the main page to show what the article is. Each article will get one week on the main page, again, similar to Featured Articles. I know no-one may say yes cause I'm not someone who edits, but I think this would help users, ecspecially new users, who may be nervous making an article. This does not mean we will have stub articles, and I frankly think this project will prevent them. Proposer: Max2 Deadline: 20:00, 22 September 2007 Give it a Try Max2 (talk) Supporter, reasons given above ~Uniju(T-C-E) Sounds like a good idea! ~PY -Per Max2 Minimariolover10 I agree. It won't fail. Plus, we have no idea what to edit, and recently messages aren't replying fast. Peachycakes 3.14 06:57, 17 September 2007 (EDT) I'll help, it seems like a neat idea. CaptainN I think that would help! Per Max2.  Caps Lock LORD 14:13, 21 September 2007 (EDT) Frum LANKY KONG ! I think it's a great idea, and could work. YELLOWYOSHI398 – Sounds good. It's at least worth a try. Nah Plumber These projects always seem to fail. I don't think we're ready for it yet. XzelionETC See my comments Comments Are you thinking about something like MarioWiki: PAIR; or an Improvement Drive, where we pick one article a week or month, feature it somewhere and encourage all users to work on it? Or are you thinking something else? It would be nice to get a better sense of what you are thinking, cause I am all for helping users getting active and making improvements. -- Son of Suns Yeah, an Improvement Drive. That's exactly what I mean! Max2 (talk) Okay. I think you need to clarify some points. You should state above what this would entaiil exactly. For starters, you can answer these questions and put them in the proposal itself. Would users vote for an article to be improved (the one with the most votes gets featured)? Would the article be featured for a week, a month, etc.? And would the article be featured on the main page (like, This Week (or month)'s Collaboration is: so and so) with a link to that page? -- Son of Suns Ok. Is this clarified enough? Max2 (talk) I added descriptions of the aspects of the project, how to set it up, and why I think it would work. Yes. That makes sense. One more question: would one of the secondary goals be to get improvement drive articles to FA standards, if the subject is notable? (An aside: even Doopliss is a notable subject - it could become an FA.) -- Son of Suns Well, as most users say, the goal for every article would be to become an FA. i'm ont saying we only improve articles that can be FA articles, this is mainly just to cut back on stubs and short articles. Max2 (talk) That makes sense. I wish you the best of luck with this project. I don't know how I feel about this yet, as previous improvement drive/collaboration projects have failed. We'll see what happens. =) -- Son of Suns It seems to be sort of popular with the crowd. Except Plumber. Max2 (talk) Projects like this have been tried before and failed, perhaps we should wait till we have a larger community and more editors. XzelionETC I wish more people knew about MarioWiki at MFGG, then we'd sure get a lot of new users! Though I hope kingmetroid doesn't come. File:MiniMario.pngMinimariolover10 TALK TO ME ABOUT MINIES!! While many simillar idea have all been tried (and failed miserably.), this one seem to actually have a decent following, why not give it a try? Glowsquid Who would head this project? Max? XzelionETC I guess I would. or let someone else take over it if they want. And, Xz, this wouldn't fail. We might not get every article up to like FA Status, but people will work on it. I also know me being in charge was likely a "no" factor, and I'm not saying to change your vote, only that the whole thing is actually well thought out and simple enough that anybody could join in on it. Max2 (talk) Walkthrougth-style level article. Most article about level's are fine, however a few (BLIZZARD!!! is a big offender.) read like something out of a player guide. Level articles should state: Where it take place. The enemies that are in it. The special gimmick (If there's one.) This is an encyclopedia, an article shouldn't tell where to find that last Flower or how to defeat Koin. If I want that kind of information, I'll go on Gamefaq. Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: September 30, 15:00 EDT Prevent the creation of that kind of article and rewrite those already here. Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above. File:MiniMario.pngMinimariolover10 TALK TO ME ABOUT MINIES!!Glowsquid is correct. This isn't The Mario Online Encylepedia of Guides minus the bad name. Sure, non-rpg enemies can have it, but levels are wrong. ChaosNinji Per Minimariolover10 My Bloody Valentine Walkthrough doesn't work. Encyclopedia style does. Walkazo There are plenty of websites dedicated to Walkthroughs, Super Mario Wiki is here to focus on plot, setting and character. XzelionETC Per all, Seems too Game FAQy. Mewtwo49 I agree. This isn't IGN. Walkthrough level articles should be rewritten. BLIZZARD!! is WAAY too long! Allow the creation of this style of article. Son of Suns - Well I do agree many of these level articles need to be re-written in a more formal and in-universe tone, anything that happens in the level is official, and should be reported. This is an internet encyclopedia, so we can have as much info as possible on any subject. Plus, info from player's guides is official, so why shouldn't it be included here? However, maybe the level articles should have a special "Expanded Walthrough" section or something so users don't have to read the walkthrough if they don't want to. Mr.Vruet info|talk|chat - Per Son of Suns Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E - If no guide they'de all be either a bit short or stubs! Booster - Per Son of Suns. Yes, I usually tend to agree with him. I guess we think alike. Peachycakes 3.14 Per Son of Sons YELLOWYOSHI398 – We shouldn't go too in-depth, but a quick walkthrough strikes me as fine. Stumpers! Hmm... I'm all for getting rid of the "yous" and all of that, but seriously, that stuff is describing the level. In my opinion, you should only delete what you can rewrite if the information is true. ...and the walkthrough data is true. So what do you do? You describe it and say "how Mario got through it." and now how the player should do it. Full Metal Moogle Per Stumpers. Plumber Per Stumpie Comments SoS: There is a distinction betweeen describing what happen in a level and telling the reader what to do. Describing how the level jump from a fortress theme to a lava theme, forest theme... ect and what happen in each portion is interessing and encyclopedic. However, telling the reader how to get the DK Coin hiden by the Zinger in Castle Crush isn't encyclopedic. How is the fact that the fith Red Coin can only be accessed by geting the key and killing the Coin Bandit behind the door encyclopedic and revalent to the Marioverse? I agree we should describe in-depth, but we shouldn't go overboard. Sincerely, Glowsquid I definitely agree the style needs to be changed for a lot of articles, instead of describing what to do, one should describe what's in the level. However, what is "encyclopedic" for a wiki about a video game series? You can't pick up a "G" encyclopedia and find a GO! GO! MARIO!! entry. We have nothing to emulate, so saying it is unencyclopedic is a moot point. What we do know is that everything in the level exists in the Marioverse, and is therefore relevant. -- Son of Suns Well, most encyclopedia have an entry about a notable park, do said encyclopedia tell you to cross the rivers and other natural obstacle as well as giving tip like "Bring your map!" while giving away the location of every single tree/rock? No? Well, that's the same thing here. Mushroom Way is a great example of what we should do for stage writting, it's very detailled and yet, it don't use walkthrought-style writting (Kill that guy, go punch that block for X reward... ect.) - - Glowsquid Ah. That makes more sense. Still, I don't think new articles should be prevented because they have a different style. They are two different ways of showing the same information. We shouldn't stop an article from being created when we need the information, regardless of what form it's in. -- Son of Suns Well, by "preventing", I don't mean deleting the article and warn the user who created it, but rather add the rewrite tag and (maybe) give the user a small reminder about how he should avoid this style of writting. That how it should be done, IMO. - - Glowsquid Also, if we just ignore this, the Wiki will be scrap full because of some levels not like this, while a bunch are, making it a mess! We must get rid of all walkthrough to make it seem more perfersonal, like Wikipedia itself. File:MiniMario.pngMinimariolover10 TALK TO ME ABOUT MINIES!! Lario: Not really, a level article can be detailed without having to read like a walkthrought. I think I'll do an example. Detailled Style (Note, all of this is amde up.): "Grab these Coins!" is the sixth level of World 2 in Yoshi's Revenge. The level initially start out in a castle filled with lava, however, the subsequent section take place in a cave full of Bandits." ect. Walthrought-style: "Yoshi should jump on the raillift paltfrom above to gain acces to a bunch of red-coins, try to avoid the jumping sparky and try to defeat all the Fly-Guys holding the red-coins. Then, jump on all the Para-Troopa to get the flower..." ect. (I think you get the idea.) See? You can have plenty of info without making it seem like a walkthrought. - Glowsquid I am striking my vote through, so it won't count in the end, but I want my original reasonings to stay. Also, others agree with my original assessment, that a walkthrough style article is fine, and their votes are still valid. As Glowsquid stated, articles like this won't be deleted on sight, so I don't mind what the wiki decides on how these articles are written. I doesn't matter to me whether they are walkthrough style or not, just as long as they are not deleted. -- Son of Suns Moogle and Stumper: Yes, what happen in the levels is canon. But there is a problem, for what we know, Yoshi might not have got the fourth flower in Make Eggs, Throw Eggs, Donkey Kong might not have found the Bonus Barrel in Reptile Rumble, an article about a level should describe what happen in this level, not tell the player how to do this level. Knowing that X level is the only appearance of the Ghost Barrel is encyclopedic, telling the reader how to get the third flower in Watch Out Below! isn't. as I said earlier, Mushroom Way is a great example on how a level article can be detailled without falling into walkthrought-style writting. Glowsquid I agree with Glowsquid on this one. A level article on this Wiki should, in fact, describe what happens in the level, and maybe some of the features in the level, but they should not go on about what to do and what no to do. That is walkthrough style, which is not something an encyclopedia should cover. We don't tell others how to finish a level, we tell them about the level. My Bloody Valentine To all who say thaat what happen in the level is canon: Yes, you are right. But the problem is, we don't know what happened exactly in this level! Nintendo never told "Yoshi jumped on X and then collected X thingie." For what we know, Yoshi might never have bothered to collect these coins and might have accesed the Extra level by other means. Plus, how is the fact tht X flower is in X location in X levels revelant to the Marioverse? Should we tell the location of every ? Block? Glowsquid To play Devil's advocate, some items are important to actually complete a level, such as the five Flowers on every level in the Yoshi's Island series. You need to collect those to get 100% completion. You don't need to hit every ? Block to get a 100% completion in the Super Mario series. The location of Flowers is still important regardless if you say what someone should do to get it, or you simply state where it is in the level. And wouldn't level articles be awesome is they were totally complete, stating the location of every single ? Block and every single coin? We could have the most detailed level articles ever! -- Son of Suns I think we should look at the "levels" as if they were simply "stages" in Mario/Yoshi/Donkey Kong/whoever's journey. Yes, in the game you need to smash all the blocks to get 100% and get all the flowers and kill all the enemies etc. etc., but it doesn't work like that in real life. Now I'm not saying Mario is "real life" or anything, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't look at the games as games, but as actual events in the (fictional) lives of Mario and the others. Therefore, instead of writing walkthrough-style articles, we should focus on the plot of the level (i.e. Mario walks through the forest and encounters Wigglers, Goombas and a Fishin' Lakitu). We could still include game-centered facts (like the # of coins, etc.), but perhaps in a different section of the article from the initial overview? - Walkazo Walkazo described it infintelly better than I could. And no, level article wouldn't be "tottaly awesome" if we included the location of every single coin and ? block. Let's say Wikipedia page on the molecule would describe the location of every molecule in the universe, that would be awesome, right? But is the reader advanced in any way in his knowledge of what a molecule is? No? Well, that's the same thing for the Coins and ? Block. Glowsquid Why did you choose Mushroom Way as your exemplar article? The article describes how to get every single item in the entire level. Why can't that be the same for other levels? The Mushroom Way article is good because it describes everything in explicit detail - shouldn't we hold the same standards for other articles? And that molecule example doesn't make sense. All the article would have to say is that molecules make up everything. Thus we know the location of all molecules - if there is something there are molecules. But you can't say a level is made up of coins. -- Son of Suns Errmmm, you got me on the molecule point. But I still say Mushroom way is examplar ,unlike what you say, yes, it contain an enormemous of info, but unlike BLIZZARD!!!, it dont tell the reader to do X action to get X item or how to kill X enemy, it describe the geography of the area, the special gimmick (The spinning flower and Toad giving you an item.) and all the enemy in it, unlike BLIZZARD!!!, which bassicaly tell you how to do everything. Glowsquid I am not saying BLIZZARD!!! is the best article, but even if it is re-written, it should state the location of important items, just as the Mushroom Way article does (regardless if the article says "Yoshi had to go under the snow to get a Flower" or "a Flower is located under a pile of snow in the second section of the level"). -- Son of Suns Ahem, you are right. As Walkazo said, maybe we could have a sperate section ("Important Item location"?) describing the location of the various importants item. Glowsquid "Creative" header Some lenghty article are broke up in section, each section having it own header. Some article, such as Yoshi have section-header that differ from the plain (Insert name of the game here.) formula. The problem is, those header make the wiki look informal and amateurish ("Humble Beginnings " is not something that I would qualify as profesionnal, really.), also, the fact than there is two style of headers might confuse the new users. This can really get confusing if the section don't mention the name of the game (Which is quite often.), the proposal is to get rid of all these "creative" header and replace them with more professional-sounding one. Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6 15:00 EDT Crush 'em Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above. Mr.Vruet That's a good idea accually. Walkazo - I find some of these creative headlines way to cutesy for an encyclopedia, and sometimes the actual game isn't even mentioned in the section. While we don't necessarily have to label each sub-section as the game it concerns, we should make sure it is totally clear what game we're talking about. Let them be Son of Suns - I think I started this trend. I got the idea from Wookiepedia. Events are described in-universe, so I tried to create headers that described the events in the game. I think sub-headers can be "creative", but should sound more encyclopedic. Headers should describe a character's role in a game or the general events of the game. However, I don't think all articles need to be written in this style. Unlike Wikipedia, it's okay to have different style articles here, and users can decide how they want to order an article. King K. Rool might work better listing events game by game by release date, but Yoshi might work better with "creative headers", as some games take place in the past. I think a lot of sub-headers need to be written better, or changed (which you are free to do Glowsquid) but I think the style is just fine. And I don't think it's confusing - it just shows the variety of writing styles on the wiki. Comments SOS: By "confusing", I meant it might confuse the new user on hwo to write those headers, what to do, a creative header or a plain one? Glowsquid Oh I understand, and I think new users will either pick a style or just ask someone for help, or even pick a different style based on the article they are writing. -- Son of Suns One of the problems with this proposal is that some articles, such as Goomba, group many games under one header. It would be foolish to split the header into multiple headers listing each game, especially when there is not a lot of information. Also, a long header listing every game in that section would not make sense. And, according to MarioWiki: Chronology, headers should be listed in a relative chronological order. If we just stick to game names as headers, we would have two Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time sections in certain articles. I guess I am confused what a "creative" header is or not. That is a very relative term. What would this proposal do exactly? What is a "professional" header? I do believe the header needs to give reference to the events of the game and the name of the game needs to be mentioned in the section, but I don't believe a header needs to simply say the name of the game. Sections are supposed to name the game they are talking about - that's the source of the information. It's wiki policy, but some users may have forgot to put the name of the game in. We simply need to correct those errors. So.....what would this proposal change? -- Son of Suns Errmm.. By "Profesional", I mean that the header left no doubt about what it's talking about without reading lile something out of a fanfiction or an a promotional ad. Header like "Bowser Strike Again!" doesn't tell the reader what it's talking about, and sound like something out of an ad. However, header like "Mario third adventure" is already a little better, since the reader have an hint on what it's talking about and it doesn't sound too POV-ish. I don't think splitting up an header in each is "foolish, like you say. They appear in a game, it's notable. There's not a lot of information? Add some more! As for the Goomba appeatring in both past and presents in PIT... well, I can't say anything about that. -Glowsquid So as long as the header refers to the events of the game (such as "The Invasion of Dinosaur Land" or something), the header is fine? And I think it is important to have some games under one header, as long as the paragraph(s) state what games are being talked about. For example, in the Goomba article, I combined games that take place in the past to show that Goombas had a small role in games that take place in the past. This section also combines info from other titles that refer to past events (such as Super Mario Bros. and Mario Superstar Baseball). I also combined the events of Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels in another section, as the second game does not add much info to the first - not everything can just magically have more info added to it. Additionally, there is a section that descibes the events of Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2, and the Wario Land series. The paragraphs are written to make sense of all the information as a whole, not divided into sections. By forcing a section title into the article, the entire flow can be disrupted. I think writers should be given more freedom. I can't stand articles that have tons of section titles but one sentence per section. It is okay to consolidate information if it makes sense. Each article will have its own unique circumstances, so how the article is divided into sections should have its own unique rules. I do agree a lot of titles are silly - but you can change them. Be bold and active. It's not a big deal to make them more professional looking. "Bowser Strikes Back" can easily become "Conquering Mushroom World" or something like that. -- Son of Suns Merges and Splits Shrowser We all know the game MLPIT and we all know Elder Princess Shroob and that she is the supposed final boss of the game but she's not no the real one is Shrowser the shoobified Bowser who is merged with the Elder Shroob. But I think that Shrowser is worthy enough to be it's on article and not be merged with the elder princess shroob so I say we need to split these into two separate articles. Proposer Luigibros2 DeadlineOct 7 21:00 EDT Split Luigibros2 My reasons above Keep The Same Miscellaneous Pers, I agrees... Okay every time I go on here I noticed several users say "Per ___" "I agree" or "___ is right" but I think these shouldn't be said all the time because whoever say those are to lazy to think of something. Proposer: Mr. Guy Deadline: 2 October 17:00 EDT. Prevent constant these Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E - These are plain annoying Just let them YELLOWYOSHI398 – I don't see how they're really a problem. They're still reasons; they're done simply because people do agree and don't want to completely repeat each other, not because they're too lazy to think of something. Peachycakes 3.14 Ironicly, Per YY Cobold (talk · contribs) - When you force everyone to make up their own reasons, you have a set limited number of votes there can be. Ghost Jam per Cobold. We have so few active users, limiting ourselves further is suicide. Per YY398. --KPH2293 Walkazo - A lot of the time whatever comment I would've made has already been said, it'd be stupid to say the exact same thing, and as YY398 said, way to repetative. By saying Per_ or whatever we're proving that we actually read through it all and thought about it before signing our names. How's that lazy? Plumber Per everyone (indeed, I am too lazy to think up something that others have already put into words) ~PY -C'mon, we can't all think of different reasons. Sometimes we have the same opinions. ~Uniju(T-C-E)Per the other guys, what if you thought of it, then saw someone else had already said the same thing? Comments And by the way, you shouldn't call others "lazy" when you're not adding a "Comment" headline, not making a line break, not even filling in the deadline. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 10:41, 25 September 2007 (EDT) Yeah, and shouldn't this be under Miscellaneous? It's not exactly a removal. - Walkazo Yes, it should and has been moved accordingly. -- Chris 23:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT) Thanks. - Walkazo Fanvotes Okay on several featured article pages there are fan votes, however due to a recent fight this is getting nowhere so let's just have a proposal on it. Prevent them Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E 100% Unneeded Keep Them Son of Suns - How can you prevent a fan vote? Any vote could be a fan vote. Votes with justification could be fan votes. Votes with "per so-and-so" could be fan votes. And since the FA system does not favor a majority, it does not matter. One oppose will stop a million support votes. Comments Err... We already have proposal about this very matter. - Glowsquid I guess this is against "fan votes" while the other is that support votes need to be justified. So they are a little different. -- Son of Suns Community related issue on Main Page:Talk After talking a bit with Son of Suns, I think that community-related issue should'nt be brought up on the Main page talk. Why? First, the constant drama make us look like a bunch of idiots, remmember when Max2 threatened to leave for the first time, or when Wayoshi was revealed to be a spammer on the chat? Those ridiculous events very likely turned a lot of potential users off. You hate a guy and want to ramble on how much of a waste of carbon he is? Fine, but do it on the forum, geez. Second: This site is an encyclopedia, something most seem to forgot. You can chat with anyone at any time via the chat or the User talkpage, you can create sub-page that are not even related to editing such as sprite comic or fan-fiction archive, you can upload fours personnal image of your and waste our precious image space, this is being very generous. Some may being more inclinated toward the community side, I understand this choice. But please, don't mess with the editing space! This can be very annoying for users that don't want to be involved in more social-activities. Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6 21:00 EDT Prevent community-stuff from being brought up on the Main Page Talk. Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above. XzelionETC Per Glowsquid Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E Per Glowsquid ~Uniju(T-C-E)Per the other guys, who per Glosquid. :P My Bloody Valentine I agree. Per Glowsquid. No, let it stay the same. Comments