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 sysop or 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: 15:12, 4 June 2024 (EDT)
New Features
This is a proposal to impliment a new writing policy that would give order to writing about Mario's fictional universe. MarioWiki: Chronology provides a framework for writing about Mario's "history", as well as settle disputes about where to place items in a "History" or "Biography" section. The intent is not to say what we are writing is the official chronology, only Nintendo can say that. The purpose of the chronology policy is to provide a guide for writers when trying to place the order of games in a history section.
Proposer: Son of Suns
Deadline: 20:00, 31 August
Add
- Son of Suns I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
- Max2 (talk) Mr. SoS has a point.
- Cobold (talk · contribs) - Very well written guideline, can create more consistency between articles around the wiki.
- Knife (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2007 (EDT) it would clear up a lot of confusion about the Marioverse.
- YELLOWYOSHI398 – A helpful guideline and good way to keep chronology consistent.
Don't Add
- Some of it, such as Luigi's Mansion, would be speculation.
Plumber
20:49, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
To Plumber, we would simply be putting them in order of release unless it was obvious that it must be somewhere else. Luigi's Mansion is not speculation, it is in order of release. References are made to the game in titles released afterwards, so it cannot be at the end. We are not speculating on its placement, we are putting it where Nintendo gave it to us. -- Son of Suns
Removals
Glitch articles are a problem, as we could have thousands upon thousands of them, although none of them have been officially named. I am proposing that we eliminate all conjecturally named glitch articles and either merge them to a "List of Glitches" article (similar to the Beta Elements page) or just erase them completely. If this proposal goes through, someone can take action to create a List of Glitches page. If no one cares, the articles will simply be removed. Either way would be fine. However, the Minus World article should be kept, as it has been referenced in Mario games and has an official name. A list of glitch articles can be found here.
Proposer: Son of Suns
Deadline: 20:00, 31 August
Delete Glitch Articles
- Son of Suns I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
- Sir Grodus I had this idea a while back, but forgot about it. And yes, putting the glitch articles all in one place seems best; though I'm not opposed to just getting rid of them completely, since I see no real use in having them anyways.
- Wa
TC@Y – 1000s of minor errors in programming are better put on 1 good-sized page
- Mr. Guy the Guy
Talk!E I think they should be deleted, but also keep the Small Fire Mario page because it appears in a few more games.
- Knife (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT) glitches are unintended results of the developers, thus they are non-canon. I don't even think they should get a list page.
- YELLOWYOSHI398 – Most glitches aren't notable enough to merit their own articles, and, as Wayoshi said, there are just too many of them. A List of Glitches page is a good idea.
- ~PY
- I agree with YY
Keep Glitch Articles
The Terrible Big Fandom
Ok people, I'm just sick and tired of even seeing the words "Big Eight". The article is totally nothing but fanon cruft. I think we should just get rid of the article and any mentioning of it within other articles. When you look at it this way all the article is saying is "Uh ok these eight characters appeared playable in early spin-offs before other people and a lot of them are used a lot in their own games or a mainstream game so they are the most important eight characters and since a lot of people think so it is a fact.". Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I don't think so. Oh and, no adding or removing of any characters could fix this thing. WE MUST DESTROY IT WITH FIRE (no not literally)
Proposer: Fixitup
Deadline: 17:00, 24 August
Kill It
- I never thought much about it before, but now that you mention it, it sounds like a waste.-1337Yoshi
- Cobold (talk · contribs) - The Big Eight (and the Marioverse) have already been made writer guidelines. As such, the Big Eight references in articles should indeed be removed, and Marioverse should be replaces with Mario series.
- YELLOWYOSHI398 – Per Cobold.
- Phoenix Rider – Definitely. I was thinking the same thing, but Cobold worded it better.
RAP... – Whoa, that much dirt on one part. And the references that contain "Big Eight", *makes a thumbs-down* DE-LATED!!!!!!!!- Stumpers!I say we kick its big, eight butts out of the Wiki! Go, Fixitup! (but you gotta admit, I helped weaken it earlier... :D)
- PP WOO! FIRE! besides, I don't consider toad good enough, KILL THE BIG 8, (but please spare bowser, luigi, peach, well everyone but toad and Bowser's mustachioed arch enemy). chuckle.
- My Bloody ValentineIt is not official by Nintendo, only made up by fans. Get rid of it.
- Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E Big 8 is like nearly on every characture page, and it's very annoying now
Nah Leave The Fanon
While some characters are obliviousy important than other, deciding who is a Big Eight and who is not is more of an opinion than anything. Per example, do Toad really qualify? Sure, he have his own game... but all he do nodaway is appearing in some spinoff. I don't see the point in it, anyway.
Gofer
- We would have to edit the writer guidelines as well, to say these are general terms used by fans, but are not actual canon and should not be mentioned in articles. Wa TC@Y 12:41, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
- I agree, some people are obliviously more important than others, but yeah I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure how the writer guidelines work, but the point of this is to simply rid of any existence of the article.Fixitup
Changes
None currently
Merges and Splits
We've had list of Microgame pages, like WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! Introduction Microgames and individual Microgame articles. This proposal is to finally set whether we should go by list of Microgames or make an article for each Microgame.
Proposer: Knife
Deadline: 20:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Go by Lists
- Knife (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2007 (EDT) Since microgames tend to be 5 seconds long (unlike mini-games), I don't see why we should give each one of them an article. I think we should keep boss microgames though.
Make Articles for Every Single Microgame
- Full Metal Moogle
I think they do deserve an article.
Miscellaneous
Wayoshi's Return
As you noticed, Wayoshi has made a huge improvement in attitude since he was demoted. Seeing this improvement, he could be promoted to at least Sysop, without any huge worries. He continues to do Bureaucrat work, even as a normal user, and it doesn't seem to make much sense. So, should we give him another chance at being a Bureaucrat, or at least make him an Admin, or should we forget it, and leave him as a normal User?
Proposer: Pokemon DP
Deadline: 20:00, 1 September
Give him another Chance
- My Bloody Valentine I think he deserves another chance.
- F g
Yeah give him another chance, and no user is perfect.
- PP Im with Fg on this one.
- Mr.Vruet info|talk|chat Give him another chance.
- Max2 (talk) Ok, you were a bit Power Mad. But, I'm that kind of forgiving guy. As long as you're not Plumber.
- YELLOWYOSHI398 – Wayoshi has indeed improved in attitude and has probably learned a lesson since the Willy incident, and he made such a good bureaucrat while was one. I'd say he deserves a second chance.
- Knife (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2007 (EDT) I kinda liked him better when he was a sysop. The good old days.... I just don't think he should be in a position above others (Bureaucrat).
- WarioLoaf (talk) what knife said. Can't see him not being above us , though.
Don't
- ~Uniju(T-C-E)
- Sorry, but no. I don't trust him in a position of power after what happened. --KPH2293 01:55, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
Before I get any flames, this was entirely DP's idea. Ask him yourself. I will do whatever the wiki decides to do, even if it's not exactly my best wishes. Wa TC@Y 01:39, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
No way, it will just happen all over again, and I still don't trust him...(And what he did was pretty bad...) ~Uniju(T-C-E)
- If he messes up again, we demote him for good. C'mon, give him another chance here. My Bloody Valentine
I'm not even sure if this is a legitimate proposal. Wa TC@Y 13:31, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
Not hating Wayoshi or anything, but having a vote to see who gets to be a sysop or not isn't right. Then again this is a special case... since Wayoshi is a former sysop. But just to establish this, let's not have any more sysop elections here.Knife (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- If I were the site admin, I wouldn't like something like this either. It's the bureaucrat's right to nominate sysops, and noone else's. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- Ultimately, only Steve can decide anyways. I'm sure he will take all these comments and results into consideration, but he will have the final say, and we must respect his decision. -- Son of Suns
Yeah guys, this shouldn't be for us to decide. I think this proposal should be deleted~PY
- Agreed. Who or who does not become a sysop/bureaucrat is Steve's jurisdiction, not ours. --KPH2293 18:14, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- I only put this up, because Wayoshi was a former-Bureaucrat before, and I wanted to give him another shot at, at least being a Sysop. My Bloody Valentine But, fine, if you want, get rid of this.
- I don't think we should get rid of this proposal. I think Steve would like to hear what people have to say. Just don't be angry if Steve makes a decision that is opposite of the final proposal result. It's like when Congress votes to show approval or disapproval of an executive action. Congress can not actually change the executive action, the vote is purely symbolic. -- Son of Suns
