MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page


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. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used.
  2. The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). Proposers are allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT.)
    • For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday, August 2, and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with 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. Voters 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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  9. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an admin at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
  10. 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  11. There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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.
  12. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the Administration.
  13. If the admins 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.
  14. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example of what 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 issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 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====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====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 another 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.

For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

How To

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected 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, so no "Voting Start" line is needed. (All times GMT.)
    • For example, if a proposal is added any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, voting starts immediately and ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time 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

New Features

Removals

Less Merging and Unmerge some merged Articles

Rules

  • Do not merge or Propose to merge non-stub articles.Especially Enemies
  • Un-merge Previously merged non-stub articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha
  • The 1st rule do not apply to Administrators

I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging Lava Bubble and Podoboo deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble. I propose that there should be less suggestions of merging stuff, especially with good articles. Just because something looks similar or the "japanese names are the same" doesnt mean that one of the articles should be ruined. (If merging prevents stubs,then it is OK)

Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)
Voting start: April 27, 2011, 14:00 GMT
Deadline: May 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)Per My Proposal
  2. Superfiremario (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Bop1996 (talk) Per my comment. I don't see what this proposal is based off of, except one example where, if my memory serves, there was a good reason for merging.
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) We already have a system for this it's called the talk page proposal
  3. Yoshiwaker (talk) Per my comment.

Comments

first things first which articles are to be un-merged is that up to you or who is that going to be decided by also your starting time is wrong and so is your end time Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

We can't put a limit on how many things can be merged. If something needs to be merged, we have to merge it. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Plus isnt that why we have talk pages to determine whether or not we need an article Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

From what I understand, you want to make sure merging is a last resort because the articles we're merging are good? We merge articles for various reasons. Some of those reasons could be considered invalid today, but you can't put a limit on merging. Suppose someone makes lavish articles for all the trophies in the Super Smash Bros. series. If this proposal succeded, we wouldn't be able to merge them because it would merge too much and the articles are too good to merge, which, if you didn't realize yet, are not good reasons. Reversinator (talk)

First of all, this proposal is vague. You do not specify which types of articles you want merged; instead, you make some vague reference to an article that is "good enough."

Second, you don't mention what type of limit is being enforced, only that one needs to be.

Third, sometimes merging is necessary. It's important to look at all the evidence and make a rational decision based off all the evidence.

Fourth, what articles are you planning on un-merging?

All in all, I see no reason whatsoever to support this, or to even have it proposed... Bop1996 (talk)

@bop1996 I plan on having articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha unmerged.Also,the Badge page needs to be broken up by game,or by badge. I think Stubs still need to be merged though.

@Reversinator I think good articles should remain independent.but stubs should be merged together. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi What constitutes a good article? As for Badges, a single comprehensive article is, in my opinion, more beneficial than a series of short ones. Mario4Ever (talk)

And you still haven't explained who get's to decide what articles get to be un-merged or why we need to change the system when we have talk pages for this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi Question what doesnt apply to Admins and another Question why not just make talk page proposals about this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@goombasshoe Only Administrators get to make merging TTPs,but anyone can vote on them.And most of the Non-Stub articles that were previously merged get un-merged yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)


Then make a TPP if you want that. The badge page works very well with the current situation, no need to mess it up. If you think stubs need to be merged, then look at the power shot proposal below, in the comments. I.e. Marioguy's comment. Also, you still are using the ambiguous term "good article." Bop1996 (talk)

and who gets to decide what get unmerged also why should admins be the only people to be able to make merging proposals Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

This whole proposal is based on your opinion that merging is always bad. Basically, you are just trying to impose your will on the whole wiki. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with GS15. Just because some people are admins does not mean that they are the only people who can make good decisions regarding splitting and merging.Yoshiwaker (talk)

All of the Non-Stub Articles that were merged get un-merged.And I think Admins should only get to make Merging TTPs because it would make less unnecesary mergingyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

@yoshiwalker Merging isnt always bad.I think that Meging things that dont need to be merged is thoughyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

Remove Voting Start Rule

This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only.

All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it.

While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided".

Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this.

I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals.

Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Voting start: April 21, 18:22 GMT
Deadline: April 28 23:59 GMT.

Support

  1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Let's delete this useless, unnecessary, and somewhat complicated rule that doesn't even apply to all proposals! I hope you guys agree on me on this.
  2. Luigi is OSAM (talk) YES YES YES! Esptaily since I don't go by GMT, I never know when to start. IT STUPID
  3. Tails777 (talk) Per all and my comment.
  4. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Per proposal
  5. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all!
  6. Zero777 (talk) Per comments, especially mine.
  7. SWFlash (talk) Per proposal.
  8. Superfiremario (talk) I don't go by GMT. I go by Easern Standard Time. (EST). I think this is the best proposal eva!
  9. Phoenix (talk) Yes! Yes! Yes! 1000x yes! I was actually going to make a proposal about this myself, but since you beat me to it, I'm all for it! :D
  10. UltraMario3000 (talk) Gah! I hate having to wait to vote! Per LunaticGreenMalleo!:D
  11. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – I myself have seen several proposals actually ignore this rule, and I agree with the fact that this policy complicates the voting process.
  12. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per Super Mario Bros.
  13. Glowsquid (talk) The idea behind the rule was supposedly to prevent a proposal from being swayed by a "flood" of votes in one direction, but from what I've seen, the rule simply moves the problem from the voting sections to the comments. It doesn't fix anything and add a new irritant, so yeah, get rid of it.
  14. Gamefreak75 (talk) I never really liked this rule, anyways. Per all.
  15. Walkazo (talk) - The delay needlessly complicates things with no real benefit to show for it.
  16. Edofenrir (talk) - I completely forgot about this proposal. >_> Ironically, I would have supported it much earlier if I had been allowed to do it at the time I made that comment below. You see where I'm getting with this.
  17. Count Bonsula (talk) Per all.
  18. MarioMaster15 (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Mario4Ever (talk) Je regrette, mais c'est necessaire. Per my comments below.
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per what ever he said up there and down there
  3. Bop1996 (talk) Per Mario4Ever in the comments and myself. The only answer I saw to my objections was one from BLOF that I chalk down to a matter of disagreement. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Comments

It's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. - Edofenrir (talk)

LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support. Zero777 (talk)

@Zero777 - But if you think it's unnecessary, why would you oppose...? Phoenix (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
Fix'd Zero777 (talk)

While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided". How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing {{User|Username}} in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule. Mario4Ever (talk)

Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy! Superfiremario (talk)

Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. </long-winded ramble> Bop1996 (talk)

I've been here before this rule got initiated and the voting start rule makes no difference whatsoever in opinions first made about the proposal. It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Besides, I'm not the only one who dislikes this rule and having a voting start only for this, no matter how major it is, seems inconsistent along with other proposal-like stuff. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Mario4Ever: Look, we're better off without it. It doesn't fix the problem, but the rule is useless for people that are not online every day and it punishes those that are online everyday. It started out with good intentions, but nowadays, I find it more of a hassle than a help. One week is enough for discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion. Besides, the comments people make during the one-day delay is sometimes just, "Good idea! I will support this proposal!" or something like that. Really, we're better off without it. Besides, it complicates the process. By allowing users to vote after a proposal is created means that we do not have to check if they are within voting start. Voting start period is annoying for me, and no matter how much we remind them, users STILL break the rule. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. I think the one-day discussion is useful for allowing users to wrap their heads around the proposal, so to speak, enabling their votes to be based upon their reasoning and not on what the majority thinks. Users who come to these proposals and see a large number of support votes or oppose votes may be discouraged from voting because their opinions may do nothing to affect the results (though this is not always the case, as I was the sole opposer of Booderdash (talk)'s TPP to merge Ashley and Red), or they may pick whichever side has more votes, giving no thought to the proposal's potential benefit/harm to the wiki. The rule would be easier to follow if it were implemented on TPPs and FAs, but I realize that it is more difficult to get that approved than to get this removed.
BabyLuigiOnFire: It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins? Mario4Ever (talk)
The delay is unnecessary, though. I don't see why we need this. It already proved to be more of a hassle than a help. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

I understand that, but removing the rule doesn't really do anything to fix that. Most people aren't ready to vote immediately after a proposal is posted, and regardless of whether the rule is in place or not, people are going to swarm the support and oppose sections once allowed, though I feel as if removing the rule would only decrease the amount of time in which this happens. Mario4Ever (talk)
Again, I'm not intending to fix this problem. The voting start, I believe, creates more problems than remedies them. I'm not in the wiki every day, and when I log in, I see a proposal that is already voted. This rule assumes that every user is logged in every day, but for a big deal of us, this is not the case. The rule wants to encourage discussion (I saw the proposal for this), but it doesn't really help the problem. I have not seen a major change after this rule was initiated, and ever since, I am getting more and more irritated by the problems it creates instead of fixes. I am now cracking from frustration this rule gives me (and possibly other users), and this is how I proposed this.LeftyGreenMario (talk)

"Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I'm not here on a daily basis, either, but (and not to be rude) I usually just check the recent changes (depending on how long I've been gone, I'll check the last 50 or the last 500) to see if there is a new proposal. The only time the voting start thing is an issue for me is when a proposal is posted in which I have a great deal of interest, though this is rare. I understand where you're coming from, though. Mario4Ever (talk)

I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.Tails777 (talk)

Oh, but you can vote in your own proposal whenever you want. The rule stated that. Anyway, feel my frustration :( LeftyGreenMario (talk)
I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. Of course that's not reason enough, Mario4Ever! I have other reasons to delete this rule too! Sort of late reply, but please read my proposal more carefully! LeftyGreenMario (talk)
I am going to barge in here; I still have no opinion on this, but that would be because I am evaluating the situation in my head using my logic. If I were using your proposal's logic to decide my opinion, I would be opposing as every point in your proposal is flawed.
Your first point, that the rule is too complicated, is the only coherent point there. There's not much to say in opposition to it, taking into consideration that the complexity of a rule is an opinionated factor of a decision, is that the workload placed on a user with inadequate knowledge of the rules and guidelines for proposals is very minimal - if you don't know how the rule works, the people who do know how will fix your mistakes for you. This means that, while for some this rule may be complicated (me, I understand it perfectly), the others who do understand it can fix mistakes made.
Your second point is referring to a minority of the general population of users who actually vote on proposals. As this point is pointing out disadvantages only for those users who are not online every day, which a large amount are, the point is moot. ADDITIONALLY I'd like to point out that it doesn't take more than one user to find a flaw with a proposal and point it out in the comments because after all, everyone (or I should hope everyone) is reading the comments section before voting.
Finally your last point, which I find rather amusing. Your point, reworded, is "this rule is not present in other forms of proposals, and therefore it should not be present in this one" - you know, the FA process involves creating a subpage for every article - maybe we should get rid of that, because that's not part of the proposals process. Or maybe we should invoke a one-week duedate on all FAs; that'll match them up with proposals! Now, what I'm trying to point out here is not that I can make a mockery of a situation, but that the rules for all of our different proposals are different. In Featured Articles, it can only pass if the score is 5-0, with proposals the score can pass by any margin greater than three. There are tons of different circumstances that take place which invalidate this statement even further.
So now, going back to my point of you really having only one point, your only point here is that the rule is too complicated; a point which I put up a strong argument against - this proposal's basis is not very sturdy and could crumble at any time. I'm not gonna vote now but if I don't see a more intelligent reason, I may vote later on.
tl;dr: Your proposal really only does have one point, that it is too complicated - being too complicated is a very weak point as multiple users do get it and those users can fix the mistakes of the users who don't. So really this proposal has one, weak, point supporting it. I don't find that to be adequate and I hope those reading this comment don't either. Marioguy1 (talk)
Look, why are you assuming I do not know this rule? I KNOW how it works, many people KNOW how this works, and I don't make proposals too often However, I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with this rule. Rules were created to prevent chaos and stuff like that, but I do not know how this rule helps proposals in any way possible. This rule was meant to encourage discussion, but for some reason it's only discussion here. You are making a bad analogy here. Maybe I didn't get my point straight, but at least I don't understand why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule. They are different, but they still do not get some form of delay. Maybe people access it less often? I didn't see any reason for this when Talk Page Proposals were created. Maybe they should get this rule too? I fix people's mistakes frequently, due to their breaking the rule, and I wish that I don't have to do this. Same thing with supporters in FA nominations, but at least the rule sort of "removes" fan votes.
You overlooked my point how I say, "It is useless and it proved to be more of a hassle than a help." I found this rule to be useless too, plus all my points. If it is really useful, it should be be at least present in Talk Page Proposals in some shape and form. Again, I KNOW the rule, and just because I know how it works doesn't mean I have to like it. Just because it is complicated doesn't mean I don't know how to do it. I said that it makes the voting process more complicated, but you just dismiss this as, "Oh, but most of us know how to do it!". And complexity can be an objective thing. The more rules, the more complex, the more sophisticated. Now, most of our rules ARE necessary, so we don't have flame wars and undesirable stuff like that. However, when we can be a bit simpler, I suggest that we go simpler, so more people understand, more people don't break it, and it is less work for us.
I don't even understand your argument of my second point. I said that people who are online every day get a delay and those who aren't will be in the same situation of 20 users already voting.
And you are making a mockery using bad analogy. How nice of you. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

This is a GREAT idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted. It's POINTLESS!!!!!!! On the forst day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it! Luigi is OSAM (talk)

Rephrased: "This is a great idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke a rule and voted. It's pointless! On the first day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it!"
Rephrased with all insubstantial/unreasoned parts removed: "When I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted."
Rephrased with a different context: "When I made a proposal, I actually had to read the rules to know how to do it. Then I accidentally voted on a proposal before voting start!"
I would like to point out the last rephrase; when making a proposal you should be totally informed on everything, read the rules even if you do know how to do everything. And you accidentally voting before is not a crime; someone removed it and we went on with our days. Hardly worth all of the pain and suffering we will have if we pass an invalid proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)
OMG I didn't see this! I'll respond now.
I never assumed you don't know the rule, I never said you don't, I said people don't know how the rule works. This rule helps proposals by calling out the hidden flaws in proposals; multiple times people have been gung-ho about a proposal before realizing that it won't really help the wiki, just because you haven't seen these occasions does not mean they don't happen. And I don't recall making an analogy in the first paragraph, the only analogy I can find is a vague one; my references to the FA processes in the third paragraph.
Secondly, I don't know why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule, maybe we should go add that rule to talk page proposals. Maybe it's because TPPs get two weeks discussion, maybe it's because they're considered "less notable", I don't know, but that shouldn't be a reason to take out the rules in this thing; as I mentioned, the two things are different, we can't compare one with the other.
I never overlooked any of your points; usefulness is not a set amount, you saying useless (and you saying it's more of a hassle than a help) is your opinion, and should not reflect any facts. And that was exactly how I dismissed your point; most of us know how to do it (though I don't recall using the word most) - the ones who do know can fix it; and if you're too tired to fix it yourself, leave it for someone else who's not too tired.
Finally when you say that when we have a rule that's not helping, we can make everything easier, yet you also admit that most rules are there for a reason - those aren't technically contradicting points, but they sure are close. Insert my point about uselessness being an opinion and not a fact and then that really doesn't make sense. Can we establish, for the length of this proposal, that, while the use may not be apparent to you, this rule does have a use? Or do you think that the rule has no use at all and could never help anything?
To clarify my argument to your second point. I am saying that while there may be a few users who don't come on daily, there are some users who are. And those users will find the flaws and the flaws will be there, in the comments section, the next day when the users who don't come on daily come on.
Finally, I see no mockery and no analogy in my comments and I think you're just feeling sentiments that are not there. Marioguy1 (talk)


@ Marioguy1 I knew the rules of proposals, I just didn't know the rules of GMT. Good day to you all Luigi is OSAM (talk)
Ugh, I hate arguing with people. I am sorry, but I am a very sensitive person. Analogies are comparisons, and I believe you are using a bad analogy. You think that because voting start is not in other proposals, so it shouldn't be in other proposals; BUT if that is the case, should we make proposals similar to FA's? Sorry if I'm not getting my point straight (I have a lot of trouble with this). Anyway, I'm not merely stating that just because Talk Page Proposals don't have this rule, so this rule should be taking out. It's either both have this rule in some shape or neither or else something seems strange and inconsistent. I think neither is the better choice.
I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that the more rules we have, the more complex the process is, but most of them are necessary. If we have unnecessary rules, that just adds to the complexity, and if we can go simple, then let's go for it. I don't see any nearly-contradicting points there. And I believe voting start is useless, and it proved itself to be useless and annoying for most people (or so it seems). I groan in frustration every time someone breaks the rule or if I want to vote. Subjective it may be, but I never saw how this rule impacted proposals majorly.
Besides, proposals are not irreversible. If we get a proposal that passes, but we despise it later on, we can make another one. Well, I'm not intending to refer to this rule, but again, this rule doesn't want a glut of users voting on a proposal so it might show undesirable results, but hey, let's just make another one and see how the results go! So why we have this rule? I don't know. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

@Kaptian K. Rool: What the heck are you trying to say?? Zero777 (talk)

@Kaptain K. Rool: Are you sure you understand what's being proposed? Fawfulfury65 (talk)

It's no problem, just think of this as a discussion; we are discussing the best course of action. And what I am trying to point out is that talk page proposals and proposals have different rules, for example, Talk Page Proposals take two weeks to complete. Maybe the one week extension to the deadline makes the voting start rule meaningless? Either way, the rules of proposals and talk page proposals are not the same, so we cannot accurately compare them to eachother. The same goes for proposals and Featured Articles.
What I am trying to point out with the "contradictory" point, is that saying this rule is useless is an opinion; some people see use for it, some people don't. I'm sure people have reason to see both ways, but the fact the remains that it is one person's word against another's as to whether the rule is useless or not.
And I realize that you could always make a proposal to fix the mistake that was made, I just finished doing that with Gnat Attack and yoshiyoshiyoshi is doing it now with Pale Piranha, but the process will always take over a month to complete; which is a long amount of time for something that could have been corrected with only one day extra in voting time. Marioguy1 (talk)

Changes

Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article

This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs.

Proposer: Tails777 (talk)
Voting Start: April 16, 2011, 22:30 GMT
Deadline: April 23, 2011 Extended: April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Tails777 (talk) Per me.
  2. SWFlash (talk) First! Per proposal.
  3. Zero777 (talk) They are not stubs, but per my reason in the Super Strike Merge proposal.
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all and myself! If the Super Strikes are merged, so does this!
  5. Joeypmario (talk)Per all.
  6. Doopliss101 (talk) Per all
  7. Superfiremario (talk) Per comments.

Oppose

  1. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Comparing differences between two Power Shots gives a bigger difference than comparing two Super Strikes/Mega Strikes to each other. So for example, Koopa Troopa's Water Bomb is always a drop shot and it slows the opponent down, while Koopa Paratroopa's Energy Ball is always a lob shot and it spins the opponent around. Besides, there are 14 characters in Mario Power Tennis, and each character has both an offensive power shot and a defensive power shot. That would merge 28 shots into one article. The difference between Super Strikes and Mega Strikes are just aesthetic, they're no different to each other besides the way they look. This is why they were merged.
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per all
  3. Nicke8 (talk) Per all.
  4. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
  5. MeritC (talk) Per all.
  6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per the user with the ridiculously long username.
  7. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.
  8. DKPetey99 (talk) Per DK and DK vs B and BJ
  9. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) - Because.... theat clutters the articles together and makes it look bad.
  10. MarioMaster15 (talk) Per all.

Comments

The dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. - Walkazo (talk)

I hate when I have to say this, but a stub is not a short article. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people. Reversinator (talk)

I seriously have to get a hammer and pound that sentence into people's heads >_>
A long time ago, we thought that all stubs were bad. We decided to merge all stubs into bigger articles; thinking that it would be great and we'd have no stubs. You know what resulted? Stuff like this. Seriously, a boss of a game is merged into the game that it appears in! If the Shadow Queen article was a stub, would we merge that into PM:TTYD? I mean, honestly, sometimes stubs can be tolerated, but if you go overboard and constantly think "stubs = death" then you are bound to make mistakes. Marioguy1 (talk)
Well sorry, I just don't understand these things, I didn't know what stub means and I only say it on small articles/short sections of articles so I assumed they were small articles. Tails777 (talk)

I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to Fire Breath? It appears in Smash Bros. as well. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

@DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.: If Fire Breath appears in Smash Bros Brawl, it would be in Bowser's article. All characters special attacks are on their own articles. Tails777 (talk)

@Tails777 Fire Breath has it's own article. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

Forget Japanese Names

I think we should'nt speculate or decide stuff based on the Japanese name. Sometimes stuff has the same name in japan,so people think it's the same enemy/item or whatever it is. I think Japanese names should only be mentioned in the Languages and Trivia sections.

Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)
Voting start: April 27, 2011, 14:26
Deadline: May 10, 2011, 23:59

Support

  1. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)Per My Proposal

Oppose

Comments

So the country where the game is made and where the enemies are created on an international wiki names are completely irrelevant what only the American names count so i guess Skeleton Koopa's and Mini-Ninji's now get there own articles and we should merge rename Birdo's from Super Mario Bros. 2 Ostro because that's what there called in the credits of the game Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Sigh...this proposal is based off of your reasoning on the Pale Piranha talk page concerning our naming policy, isn't it? You think that because "most of us" play the American or European versions of a game, any other translations are irrelevant. That reasoning is unsound and so is the reasoning behind this proposal. Mario4Ever (talk)

No,It is also based on the Lava Bubble/Podoboo merge.Those are 2 unrelated things that got merged because of their japanese names.I think we could just as well misunderstand japanese names as we could american ones.

@goombas shoe.those hotel mario(is this even "cannon"?) creatures are extremely similar,andthe Birdo/Ostro goof had nothing to do with japanese. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

first off yes Hotel Mario is an officially licensed Nintendo game second off no you can't you seem to think that American names are the only ones that matter yet when i use facts you dance around the issue so tell me why should we not split the two skeleton koopas if your proposal passes i mean they have separate names in English don't they. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi: It doesn't matter if the names are in Japanese, Spanish, or Arabic. When in doubt over which name to use or over which species are related, we use the name given in the region in which the game is first released. Most Nintendo games are first released in Japan, as it is a Japanese company with a Japanese name, so we rely upon it when the American/European translation is insufficient. You can't just disregard translations because you don't speak a given language or own a game in a specific language. As I said on your TPP, this is an international wiki. Mario4Ever (talk)

In the King Boo example, the SMS boss looks completely different than the King Boo seen in all other games, so we went with the Japanese names that said they were, in fact, different characters. For the Parabuzzy and Para-Beetle situation, they look like different things, so we went with the names that say they're different things, which happened to be from the English translation that time, rather than the Japanese. In this situation, the Boomerang Bros. also look like different things, so once again, we should go with the names that say they're different things, but this time it's not the English or Japanese versions that provides those names, but the French and Italian ones. In every case, we're assessing all the information we have about the subjects in question, and choosing the naming convention that makes the most sense, whether it's saying the things are the same (like SMRPG), or different (like the other examples). It doesn't matter which region the names come from: it's all Nintendo, so it's all official and perfectly valid; no one office is any more important than any other, nor is any one team more or less reliable than any other. Going with the Japanese names a couple times doesn't mean we always have to "trust" them, and not going with Italy on the King Boo issue doesn't mean they'll never be right. How the different localizations named different species in different games shouldn't influence what we do about this situation: it's a case-by-case process. - Walkazo.

Thanks for explaining it.I thought that everything gettting merged,because the japanese names were the same,was really annoying me.Maybe they just call it that because they dont want to make up names for them?yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

I apologize for the out of context approach, but this pretty much nailed the situation perfectly (imho). We shouldn't do away with Japanese names. Pay special attention to the bottom half, I left the top half in to help with context a little. Bop1996 (talk)

Miscellaneous

Blocked Users' Votes

Ach, headache. A headache is whatever I get when there is something on the wiki that does not fall under any policies. In this case, that thing would be the votes pertaining to blocked users. In the past, I have seen blocked users with their votes removed for being blocked, they have kept their votes there, I've even seen several times where the procedure was changed depending on the length of the block. I'm here to set something in stone about blocked users; specifically, how their votes are treated.

Now I have several options that I would consider accurate so let me explain them all:

  1. All blocked user's votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
  2. All permanently blocked user's votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
  3. All permanently blocked user's votes are removed, but if a user's block expires two or more days before the end of the proposal, then their vote remains.

All three options have their pros and cons; the first option will simplify things greatly, but it will unfairly treat users who are blocked for (hypothetically) one day. The second option will fairly treat everyone, isn't too complicated, but if a user is unblocked an hour before the proposal ends, will they really have time to change their vote (if they want to change it)?

Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want.

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Voting Start: 28 April, 2011 (22:06 GMT)
Deadline: May 5, 2011 (23:59 GMT)

Option 1

Option 2

  1. Marioguy1 (talk) - I think this option represents an accurate balance between the other two; and the chance of the blocked user being blocked until right before a proposal passes AND THEN wanting to change their vote are very minimal.

Option 3

Do Nothing

Comments

If anybody has any suggestions for options 4 and 5, I'd be glad to add them in any time in the next three days. Marioguy1 (talk)

I respect what you're proposing here, but what I think you would need to do is to to set procedures in stone depending on the length of the block, and then go from there, if you know what I mean. So, for instance:
  • 24 hour block = Vote is not removed.
  • 24 hour block - 1 week block = Vote is not removed unless block expires after proposal ends.
  • 1 week block and higher = Vote is removed.
  • Infinite block = Vote is always removed under any circumstances (unless for some reason the user's block expires while the proposal is still active, but again, this would have to be in accordance with the "24 hour block - 1 week block" policy).

This isn't a perfect procedure by any means, but food for thought at any rate, right? Phoenix (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

But if we have a TPP which just begun and then a voter is blocked for one week, one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed. That seems like a big waste of time; my way, his vote won't be removed unless his block is obviously going to exceed the ending of the proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)
"...one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed." Well, yes, but I said that in the case of a block lasting for 1 week, the vote is not removed unless the block expires after the proposal ends. Since the block, in this case at least, will expire within the time limit of the proposal (TPP), then it should be fine, because by the time the proposal ends, the user will be unblocked, and will regain their credability as a legitimate voter... Phoenix (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

We should also take other circumstances into consideration, such as the reason for the user's block. For example, if the user was banned for sockpuppeting or vandalism, his/her vote will probably be removed, but if the user was banned for editing a page multiple times, his/her vote probably won't be removed. ThirdMarioBro (talk)

Well, okay, but if we do that, then are we going to take those factors into consideration in conjunction with the length of the block, or independent of the block length...? Phoenix (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
@Phoenix: So what you're saying is that a user who's block is over one week long yet still expires during the voting period would have to re-add their vote? Wouldn't that just be redundant?
@ThirdMarioBro: Not really, a block is a block, if user is blocked for three weeks for sockpuppeting then their vote is invalid; they have no ability to change the vote or remove it. The same goes for a block of the same length but for editing multiple times (which is not a blockable offense). Marioguy1 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1015985"