View source for MarioWiki:Proposals

<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
<div class="proposal">
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|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 [[/Archive|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 <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.

<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
#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)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" 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.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]"
#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.

__TOC__

<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>

== New Features ==
''None at the moment.''

== Removals ==
=== Backup Ops ===
I do not believe many of you are aware, but there has been a practice of "backup-oping" in the chatroom. When it is crowded and people are spamming, or if the only op in the room has to go for awhile, they op '''their friends''' or anyone who claims that they will use their power responsibly. I consider this abuse of power & incapability on part of the current ops. If there really is trouble in the chatroom that often, we need more patrollers (at the time of this posting there was 10 users but 0 ops), and the current ops need to take action and not cower in fear! But one of these days chaos will wreak havoc at the hands of one of these "backups". I'm not saying anyone is not trustworthy, this just isn't smart and things need to return to normal.

'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br/>
'''Deadline:''' 15:00, Dec 2

==== Only Current Ops ====
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; one of these days a proclaimed backup will disrupt the chat, I guarantee it. We need more capable ops, that's the problem!
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}Per Wayoshi.
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}}&ndash; I agree. I mean if an OP goes away but they are still on Chat they can look back and see what happens when they come back.The only time backup ops will help is when no ops are on, and when no ops are on, no backup ops are oped. I have also been on all day with Chaosninji and Wayoshi.
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] Even thought I am one of those back-up operators, I agree with what Wayoshi said. I am too not against the idea of having more pattrolers, I mean, currenlty, we have at least 10 sysops and one pattroller... what the heck?
#[[User:ChaosNinji|ChaosNinji]] I agree wholeheartedly that we need more patrollers and less Back-up ops. At the time of my writing this, the chatroom is being flooded and spammed, as it has been all day, and not a one op has appeared throught the day to stop it!
#Dannyboy: Agreeing with the person with the title of Wayoshi.

==== Allow Backups ====
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Even as I write this, Wayoshi is spamming the Chat. Do you see why he wants to get rid of Back-up Ops?

==== Comments ====
If this proposal fails, I would like a list of official backups current ops can look towards, maybe in [[Help:Chat]], at the very least. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 12:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

There needs to be more active ops. {{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}}
::One thing you guys are forgetting, is that most of the current Sysops are trapped in their personal lives at the moment and, I don't know if school is on in America, but, if it is, that is a distraction as well. And, the reason I'm not on all the time, is because I have a life to live, as well as sleep I need! And, are you sure we should be listening to Wayoshi? He spams the most in the Chat when there are no Ops. Additionally, we should not make Patrollers just to save the Chat. Patrollers have to fight off vandalism on the Wiki, not JUST protect the Chat. If this is such a big deal, why don't you just remove the Chat for good? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}

Pokemon DP: While Wayoshi motives are indeed dubious, he's right. This whole back-up up thing may make soem of those back-uo operators that they could get promoted to Pattroler status, plus, a back-up operator can only be opped when an actual operator is on the chat, which make the point of their existence kind of moot.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]

I'm going to remain neutral on this, as both sides have a fair point. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 21:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

=== [[MarioWiki:Improvement Drive]]===

The improvement drive was created a few time ago, even thought simmilar ideas have been tried and all failed miserably, it seemed like a good idea at time. But now, it's barely edited and the creator (Max2) is blocked from editing forever. As of now, the Improvement drive seem like a waste of database space more than anything, I propose we delete it and state somewhere than project like it were tried and failed, so we won't end up with the idea being brought up again, accpeted, and turn out to be a similar fiasco.

'''Proposer:''' [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] <br/>
'''Deadline:''' 15:00, Dec 2

==== Get rid of it ====
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; I knew this wouldn't work. We are a big community, yes, but it seems mainspace contributors don't work together, as our knowledge is spread out, not concentrated on a particular area (I myself have never played the original SMB). This just won't work consistently.

==== Try a comeback ====

==== Comments ====

==Splits & Merges==
===Ashley & Red (Revisit)===

As per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_3#Ashley_.27n.27_Red|this]] proposal, the article [[Ashley and Red]] must be split into to separate articles.

Aside from not a single person who voted on the proposal taking steps to follow through, read the article. There just isn't enough information on the character Red to create anything substantial. It would result in two articles being created, one being virtually unchanged, the other being little more than a stub, resulting in a deletion or a proposal for merging.<br>
-OR-<br>
Two articles being created, both nearly identically in content, resulting in a redirect or proposal for merging.

Until the character of Red starts to play a bigger role, I say we leave well enough alone.

'''Proposer:''' [[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00 Nov. 29 

====Overturn Previous Proposal====

#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} I am the proposer and my reasons are listed above.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}Per Ghostly Jam
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Per Traffic Jam. I mean, Ghost Jam. =P
#{{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} Per the Jam of Ghosts.
#{{User:Dodoman/sig}} Red's as worthy of an article as "Gullible Soup". >_>
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} [[User:Glitchman|Glitchman]] - Per Ghost Jam.

====Continue with the split====
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] Yeah.... No one took the time to split thee page, but ti still say it '''should''' be split. Red have different abbilities, a different personnality (He have more speaking lines than Ashley, infact.)  presently, the Ashley page doesn't disccus this, but this could be changed with the split. Sorry for my lazyness...
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} You want someone to split it?  Fine.  No promises, as today is Thanksgiving.  I probably only have five minutes, but I'll do what I can... ASAP.
#Split it... or I shall pelt you with Bob-Ombs![[User:Fly_Guy_2|Fly Guy 2]]

====Comments====
Glowsquid: Is there enough unposted information to make a Red article at least a full fourth of the size of the current article (not including templates)? If yes, and it can be proven, I'll pull this proposal.<br>
<br>
Stumpers: My issue isn't with the the article not being split (in fact, that's a whole 'nother matter). My issue is with a split just not being practical based on the information we have.
-- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 13:47, 22 November 2007 (EST)
:Ah, but you yourself said that we don't ''yet'' have enough information.  Wouldn't you rather have a good, established platform now when that infromation does come?  Having a platform let's people feel like they can easily edit.  Just gimme some time to show you.  I've already started, but Christmas decorating pulled me away! :) {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 19:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::Now you're just splitting hairs. We don't ''yet'' have enough information on Wario's mother. Shouldn't be have a good, established platform for when the information becomes available? This line of thinking will leave us with a never ending ocean of stubs. If there is sufficient information to create an article about Red, that isn't a stub, then you have an argument. At the moment, however, I don't see how it's possible. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I didn't mention Wario's Mother and I don't see how I'm splitting hairs.  You'll remember one of the points you made in your proposal was that no one actually made the article, but then said "that's a whole 'nother matter." Long story short, I'm very confused about what's going on.  You want something saying that the article that would make "Ashley and Red" a complete article that doesn't need to be split?  Fair enough, but I don't understand why you wanted it.  I wouldn't have written the Red article (it's not posted yet) if you hadn't put this up... gah!  You guys just do whatever you want.  I'm done.  I only like to write anyway. :) {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 15:54, 25 November 2007 (EST)  Mmm... and just cause it will bug me if I don't say this... an implied character is not the same as a defined, major character, obviously.  I know, it was just an example.

===Minor NPC's===
A while back, I remember some users that created a "Minor NPC" Template. I don't know if it's still active, but I don't think it should be. Articles about extremly minor NPC's, with conjecture names like [[Suscpicious Doogan]], do not deserve articles. However, we need a way to mention them. What I am proposing is an article describing, in as much detail as possible, the unnamed minor NPC from various mario games (The RPG's mainly, but Super Mario Sunshine had a lot too). This could be one huge archive, or it could be seperated into different sections. Any oppositions?

'''Proposer''' [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]<br>
'''Deadline''' November 30th, 20:00 

====Support====
#[[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]](oops)

====Oppose====

====Comments====
You are not supporting yourself, Ultimatetoad? - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 07:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)

==Changes==

===Rename Function===
I am tired of seeing users have name changes at will. This is a '''privilege''', not a '''toy''', and I definitely feel like it is being abused by many (e.g. "3dejong" to "3Dejong" is a complete waste, as well as switching back to an original username after realizing the name change was not likable, among other things). It is also extra unnecessary work for the bureaucrats to be moving all of your userspace pages with '''each''' change you make.

Therefore I say we have these limits as an official policy:
*Each user may only change their name '''twice a year'''.
*A get-back counts as two renames. So going from SM97 to Viper and back to SM97 wastes your rename privilege for the year. All of you should be 100% sure of your name change, anyways.
*Minor changes such as (de)capitalization of letter(s) and addition or removal of digit(s) are not allowed.

If this goes through the policy will be in effect starting asap. Another change will be an official request page at [[MarioWiki:Changing username]] (thanks Steve for showing me this [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/HRWiki:Changing_username example]).

'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br/>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 30 Nov

====Limit Name Changes====
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; currently there are no rules on renames, which has led to abuse and excessiveness. These limits are very reasonable, IMO.
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Per Wayo, there's been some VERY minor name changes
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}Per Wayoshi. Some wikis don't even have user rename...
#{{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} Per Wayo. It may just be that I have never changed my name, but I find that these limits are easy to follow and understand. If some of these horror stories are true (Which I have to believe they are, considering they're coming from an ex-'Crat), it seems like these name changes are causing a lot of unwanted stress to 'Crats.
#{{User:Shroobario/sig}} Per Wayo.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - per all.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} - Per Wayoshi. Seriously, it gets annoying when Users change their Usernames too often. It is a big hastle on the Userpedia as well, but more of a hastle to the busy 'Crat's who have more important stuff to take care of.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 18:52, 23 November 2007 (EST) It doesn't even matter what username you have, sometimes I think of names better than Plumber, but it's too much of a waste to change.
#{{User:Smiddle/sig}} Per Wayoshi.
#{{User:Dodoman/sig}} Moogle. >_>
#{{User:Mewtwo49/sig}} per all.
#{{User:Lil'Boo/sig|Per Wayoshi and also it must be annyoing for all those awesome sysops to change alot of usernames. They have MUCH more important stuff to do than change names.}}
#{{User:TehBooKid/sig|Per all and Per Brother. I think my name change was useless aswell. Just placing "Teh" infront of my name...}}
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo and PP]] - Per all. Name changes are fun for some, confusing for all.
#'''[[User:Infecto|InfectedShroom.]]'''[[Image:infectoicon.png]] Per everyone. They hardly ever allowed name changes at Nsider...
#{{User:Luigibros2/sig}} It's a waste of time for the crats plus it counfuses the othere users when someone changes there name to many times.
#{{User:Time Q/sig}} I, personally, don't care about which user changes his user name how often. But if it's that much work for the sysops, it should be limited. And Wayoshi's rules sound reasonable.

====No Limit on Renames====
#I feel that you should have no limit, yet the name changes must be Major (ie. Paper Luigi DS-Master Crash) Not minor (ie. 3dejong-3Dejong) or you will not be able to change at all. [[User:Fly_Guy_2|FLY_GUY_2]]

====Comments====

It seems like it would be less work to just ban name changes and make page moves a sysops only function. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

LOL, I remebered when Smiddle told 3D to make major name changes, not just chainging a letter {{User:Mr. Guy/sig|Meh name:Lario to Mr. Guy}}

Ghost Jam, I think name changes are OK as a change from the norm, something fresh, just not excessively. Also, I don't understand how the 'move' right restriction applies to this proposal. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 22:51, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:I call it killing two Condors with one mushroom block. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 00:09, 24 November 2007 (EST)
*Steals quote*[[User:Fly_Guy_2|Fly Guy 2]]

===Poll of the week===
At first I found the Quote of the moment interesting but now it's boring, rarely you find a cool quote. I asked Steve to add <nowiki><poll></nowiki>, with that we could make a poll for each week and put in the place of quote of the moment! The results could be archived.

'''Proposer:''' {{User:Shroobario/sig}} <br/>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 2 Dec

====Support====
#{{User:Shroobario/sig|I'm the You-Know-Who and my You-Know-What are given You-Know-Where}}

====Oppose====
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Those belong on the forums
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per Mr. Guy.
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; per all. Remember we have several guests everyday each of whom are probably intrigued by the randomquote generator, as a member you must live with it. In fact usually I go straight to RC...
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per all. If you don't like the quotes, don't read 'em.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Per All, except Cobold, who already Per'd someone. =P

====Comments====
When first I saw Random Quote I also liked but it get boring after a time... It would better something like featured Quote. {{User:Shroobario/sig}}

I am not sure what you mean, but we should have a poll like favorite mario character Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Peach. Like on nintendo's site. {{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}}

== Miscellaneous ==
''None currently''