Editing MarioWiki talk:Proposals

{{Proposals Talk}}
<!-- ALL COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE -->

== Autoconfirmed ==

Does a user not have to be autoconfirmed to vote in a TPP? [[User:27Burst27|27Burst27]] ([[User talk:27Burst27|Talk]]) voted on [[Talk:Bowser#Make an article for Giant Bowser of Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story|my proposal]], but he just joined today and therefore, is not autoconfirmed. (Also, I'm not sure his vote is valid). I was going to delete his vote, but I wanted to make sure first.<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 11:32, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
: Rule 2: ''Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in or vote on proposals''. So, yes, only autoconfirmed users can vote on proposals.--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}}  11:35, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
::Curse you, Lugwig :P It's nice that they're willing to participate, but yeah, their vote is invalid. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:37, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
:::I guess I lose a supporter. I'll go ahead and delete the vote and tell them on their Talk Page.<br>
:::{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 11:38, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
::::I don't know if this rule applies to TPPs {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:40, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
::::: Rule 2 of TPPs: ''All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals [...]'' --{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 07:09, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

== Cancelling a Proposal ==
I made a proposal and within 12 hours it is being opposed very strongly, with 10 opposers and 2 supporters.  How do I cancel this proposal? -[[User:YoshiFlutterJump|YoshiFlutterJump]] ([[User talk:YoshiFlutterJump|talk]]) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:Just do it if rules allow it. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|Archive it]] by moving contents (cut and paste). Don't forget {{tem|ProposalOutcome}}. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 14:58, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::You can delete a proposal so long as it is within the first three days of its creation. Alternatively, you can ask an admin to do it for you, so long as you have a good reason to do so. Your proposal must also be archived as it is on the main proposals page. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 15:14, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::I just archived it; did I do it correctly? -[[User:YoshiFlutterJump|YoshiFlutterJump]] ([[User talk:YoshiFlutterJump|talk]]) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::::You used the wrong outcome, but I corrected that. Otherwise, looks fine. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:04, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::Also, you didn't give a short description of the proposal on [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive]], which [[User:TheFlameChomp|TheFlameChomp]] did for you. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 16:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

== What are the sections for? ==
In all of my time here, I don't think I've ever completely understood what each section for proposals are for. Besides the Writing Guidelines section, which is well-defined per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 26#Add a section for Writing Guidelines on this page|the proposal]] that created it, I have many questions regarding the way the page is divided. What is a "new feature"? What's the difference between a change and a removal? When should something go under miscellaneous? If I make a proposal that may or may not change a current yet minor standard, where should that go? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 08:54, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
:Based on their names, "new feature" would refer to, well, a new feature that the proposer wants implemented into the Mario Wiki, like a new template or something. A "change" is adjusting one or more things to fit a certain requirement, and a "removal" is the outright deletion of something (though the two could probably be split, if that's what you're referring to). "Miscellaneous" is anything else. Your supposed proposal would likely go under "change". {{User:Alex95/sig}} 21:50, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
::So, we have sections for adding something brand new, changing something on the wiki, completely removing something, and literally everything else (also Writing Guidelines, but again setting that aside). Is it just me, or does the Changes section seem ''way'' too broad? All merges and splits would be slotted under it, as would editing the content of policy/help pages and much more. It seems like that overlaps too much with the miscellaneous section's purpose. For the record, the proposal I had in mind for the "minor standard" bit was the ''Mario's Time Machine'' proposal that I ended up slotting under Miscellaneous. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

== Rule 8 ==

Rule 8 states that any proposal with three votes or less meets "NO QUORUM". Does the proposer's vote(s) count? I'm asking for my proposal [[Talk:Special Attack (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)#Special Attack vs. Bros. Attack|here]].<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 22:12, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
:The proposer's vote is treated like any other vote. In the Special Attack proposal's case, there are four votes, so it wouldn't be classified as a no quorum. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

== Rule 7 (RP) ==

"No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." I think this should be changed to "No proposal can be created to overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.", so that it is clear what is meant by this statement (as a proposal can be created during that time, but ends after the 4 week limit as with [[Talk:King Bill (Banzai Bill)#Change this page's identifier|what was decided with this]]). {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 23:15, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

== The Comment Glitch ==

Everyone knows about the glitch where the comments section shows up as raw code instead of a header, right? Placing any sort of code under the header fixes the glitch. So should we add some sort of code underneath the header to the copy-and-paste template?<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 23:04, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I remember that Walkazo put this code: <nowiki> &nbsp; </nowiki> on the bottom of the proposal page to fix it (also it still parses together despite me putting a nowiki tag.... {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:12, 21 November 2017 (EST)

== Conjectural in headers ==

[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 44#Prohibit the Usage of .7B.7Bconjectural.7D.7D in Headers|This proposal]] is listed as a change that has not been implemented, but I can't find a single article with {{tem|conjectural}} in a header.<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 22:08, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:I think the idea is that the rule is not written down anywhere, though I cannot confirm that. (On a side note, you need to include <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> tags around the template so that the link works.) {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:09, 2 December 2017 (EST)

::[[Mariowiki:Conjectural names#Conjectural subjects within articles|It is, actually.]] The exact wording is: ''To avoid unsightliness and problems with linking, headers themselves do ''not'' use the template, however the first line of each section should repeat the name in boldface and using <nowiki>{{conjectural}}</nowiki>, in the form:'' <code><nowiki>{{conjectural|</nowiki>''Glitch name''}}</code> I see no reason why that proposal should be there. I'm going to go ahead and take it down.
::{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 22:12, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:::Fair enough. The archive must not have been updated, then. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:14, 2 December 2017 (EST)

== HELP ME!!! ==

How to create a new proposal??? Where??? please let me the link where you can create a new proposal just on mariowiki:proposals??? {{unsigned|EnderMatrix}}
:Where to put the proposal depends on the matter in question.  If you are only discussing a single article or a small grouping of them, put the proposal on the talk page of one of the articles in question.  If you're talking about large matters that affect large groups of articles, those go on [[MarioWiki:Proposals]].  Note that any proposal relating to policy changes are put on MarioWiki:Proposals rather than the policy talk page.  MarioWiki:Proposals should tell you anything more you need to know about making proposals. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 12:16, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
:Just follow the instructions linked to [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Basic proposal and support/oppose format|here]]. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 01:06, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

== I don't really see the point in requiring users to provide a reason for their votes ==

I think it's a pointless rule as users who are forced to provide a reason are just going to either "per all" or "per proposal", when a support vote without a reason is essentially a "per proposal" vote, just as how a support vote for a featured article without a reason is, well, a "per nomination" vote. This might be a different case if someone makes a first oppose, but I don't think people are going to try abuse that nor will solitary oppose votes negatively affect proposal outcome. If there is a case where a single person tried to be the first to vote oppose for no reason, it's extremely rare. Subsequent oppose votes without a reason should otherwise be equal to a "per all" vote. Nevertheless, we exercise discretion anyway when it comes to validity of votes, per Rule 5, so it goes back to this rule ultimately being pointless. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:58, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
:Agreeable, but it also conceals invalid votes, should they appear. Invalid votes are a rarity nowadays, that's true, but they still can happen. Even if the odds are slim, removing a rule on the assumption that something won't happen is a bad assumption and likely ''will'' cause problems. "Per all" isn't a very difficult phrase to type out, anyways. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 19:13, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
::Yeah, but I say again, the only time where someone might be needed to justify a vote is when voting on an opposing side or otherwise doesn't agree with the proposer, but Rule 5 easily takes care of obviously invalid votes anyway. "Per all" and "per proposal" also "conceals" invalid votes too. Not hard to type "per all" but I also think there shouldn't be any worry or need to enforce (and thus waste time and space in the comments section pointing out that one needs a reason) if someone wants to vote without any more text beyond the username. We don't require users to support their "yea" votes in Featured Articles (in fact, at one point, we discouraged it, and that turned out inconvenient where we stopped enforcing that). Same here, maybe less inconvenient, but I don't think it's necessary. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 19:30, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Requiring a reason is never too much - we have low invalid votes because we forced users to explain why they were voting, especially if they were the first to agree with a side. If we don't require this, how can we distinguish the votes of new users who start voting without reasons from valid "per all" votes? And asking for a reason in the comments section when things get suspicious - which is almost always when very few provide reasons - doesn't take up space as well?--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 03:04, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::Actually, I think I'm fairly sure we have low invalid votes because most people are honest and take this seriously to begin with: I've seen dubious per all votes before done by users who clearly have no clue what they're voting for, and it's not me just being overly speculative either judging by those said user's voting and edit history. Additionally, the point being made is that voting one side is already just a valid "per all" vote, as the intentions of the vote clearly are, so adding a reason just for the sake of satisfying some quota seems to be vastly redundant to me. Also, things don't get that suspicious to begin with: the only places that are ripe for suspicious votes are Featured Articles, because they feature a subject the said voter likes and are more likely to vote biased towards it: in the first place, that's where most of the problem of bad votes originates from; proposals almost never had this issue ever. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:51, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::::Troll votes can be spotted with the current system, they are impossible to spot with the system without motivations. This method is going to add an unneeded burden on the proposer and the administrators, because a proposer will want to know why the unexplained opposition votes are there, and the administrators will be forced as well to ask an explanation due to rule 5 in the cases in which an outcome is decided due to unexplained votes. If you want to remove the "per all" statements, how about different solutions like using nested lists below a certain motivation without perring?--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
::::::::Troll votes were never a problem to begin with anywhere, and people who vote with trollish intentions wouldn't bother reading any of the rules anyway, so I don't know why troll votes are even a considerable problem. Additionally, trolls can be smarter and mask votes with a "per all" regardless; the best way to deal with trolls is to look at their edit history, and that's it: the general rule otherwise is to assume good faith in which most people who don't add reasons for vote ''are'' casted in good faith. I've also questioned the amount of "per all" votes in the past, because I believe people voted without reading any of the arguments opposition made, and with or without the extra text I would still get that vibe. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 13:03, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

== Starting a proposal while being opposed to the split/merge ==

Is it possible to start proposals in which the proposer itself is opposed? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 05:51, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
:Ps:Or you can't start a proposal if you are opposed to it? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 06:54, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
::No immediate examples come to mind, but I have seen it done in the past to try and settle debates. {{User|Yoshi876}}
:::[[Talk:King_Boo_(Super_Mario_Sunshine)#Talk_Page_Proposal:_Merge_with_King_Boo|Here's the only example I know of]].
:::{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 09:30, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

== Rules ==

Can we add that agressive proposals are forbidden and that if the proposer and the voters are voting agressively, the proposal gets cancelled by an admin? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 11:29, 20 November 2018 (EST)
:Admins will do so anyway. [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]] still comes into play here. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:50, 20 November 2018 (EST)
::Also, the header is [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Header]]. If anything else, is it the only wiki having proposals? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 11:52, 20 November 2018 (EST)
:::SmashWiki also has proposals, and I think Nookipedia does as well. But they're done differently from how we do it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:56, 20 November 2018 (EST)

== Maximum options ==
How much a proposal can have options up to? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 11:32, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any solid limit as long as it's a reasonable amount.  If you're getting more than five or so options, it would probably be a good idea to split some options into a new proposal. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 12:27, July 18, 2019 (EDT)

==Proposer's vote==
Does the proposer of a proposal have to vote for one of the options in the proposal they proposed, or does the proposer of the proposed proposal not need to vote right away on their proposed proposal? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 13:45, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
:You are not required to vote on your own proposal, in the same way that you're allowed to oppose it.  <s>Also thanks for the tongue twister lol</s> -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 17:35, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
::I find that very interesting, since if the proposer is proposing a proposal, not voting on their proposed proposal seems a bit odd, because the proposal's proposer normally would need a reason to propose their proposal, which would necessitate a vote on the proposal the proposer proposed. Same goes for the proposer opposing their proposed proposal, unless the opposers have convinced the proposer to change sides or some other reason for a proposal opposal, like a vote switch. <s>I am the lord of tongue twisters</s> {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:48, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
:::You don't have to vote on your own proposal. Sometimes, you can make a proposal just to see what others think, but may not be sure about where you stand yourself yet. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:52, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
::::Makes sense. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:56, August 15, 2019 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Would it be considered edit sniping to archive a proposal that isn’t your own? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 16:04, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
:I don't think so. If someone forgot to (or just decided not to) archive their proposal on their own, it would stay for quite a while past its deadline if someone else didn't step in. When a proposal of mine finishes, I usually wait for another user to archive it to prevent edit conflicts (unless they take too long, then I would archive it myself). {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 16:16, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
::I'd say give the proposer a day to do it themselves. If nothing happens by then, someone else can do it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:33, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
:::Thanks. Would it be at all necessary to add it to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Header]]? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 16:39, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
::::Nah, it's a pretty standard courtesy thing. Give the user time to take care of it themselves, unless they ask for help right away, before attempting to fix it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:42, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
:::::I just figured that it probably should be added because [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&action=history looking through the history, basically no one has archived their own proposal in the last little while.] {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:00, September 11, 2019 (EDT)

==Partial proposal overturning==
How should this represented in the archive? A proposal was made to [[Talk:Note Block#Split into Note Block, Jump Block (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) and Jump Block (Mario & Wario)|split the Jump Blocks from ''NSMBWii'' and ''Mario & Wario'' from Note Block]], then another proposal overturned the decision to split the ''NSMBWii'' Jump Block but not the ''M&W'' one. Would the older proposal be turned yellow? Or should it be left green, with a text change to only mention the part that still applies? This was asked on the comments of the second proposal but didn't really get a definitive answer. I think it should be the latter, since turning the first proposal yellow would imply the whole thing was overturned rather than just part of it. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 00:35, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
:Agreed with the latter, though, that's a question to Porplemontage, since he created the wiki. --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 02:09, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
:If no available color completely applies, we can also add a new one for proposals where only part of it applies. If this was our decision, I suggest we use {{color|lime green|limegreen}}. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 11:40, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
:I say green. It shouldn't matter whether or not a part of the proposal is in effect. It should be green if it passed and is in effect. Besides, Proposals with multiple options are green if the do nothing option wasn't chosen and there was a majority and the effects are still in effect. And those can just as easily be partially overturned. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 12:00, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
::Green, as part of it is still in effect. @FanOfYoshi there's no need to go to Porple over a small matter. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:04, September 25, 2019 (EDT)

==Self-cancellation==
{{talk}}
Why is there only a specific timeframe in which you can cancel your proposal yourself? It seems inconvenient to mandate going to an admin over something small like that. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:34, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
:Safe to assume that it is to prevent users from canceling proposals because they are losing. Requiring admin closure after three ddys prevents bigotry, as if admins deem that the proposer just wants to cancel due to losing, then they just won't cancel it. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 17:54, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
::It also prevents users from doing this and then re-proposing it, hoping that the previous opposition doesn't notice and then it will pass. Unlike failed proposals, I don't think there's any time limit between re-proposing something that was only cancelled. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 17:59, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
:::That seems kinda unrealistic. Most of the users who would even be bothered to make a proposal here don't do that. I haven't seen anyone even ''request'' cancellation for reasons besides "oh hey this idea is fundamentally flawed in both concept and design so could you cancel this thanks" in any of the talk archives I've gone through. Could you provide an example? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 18:03, October 15, 2019 (EDT)

== Stale, resolved proposals ==

I was checking the table of proposals and many, if not all of them, have been resolved. Should they be archived? --[[User:SirMoogle|SirMoogle]] ([[User talk:SirMoogle|talk]]) 15:07, April 2, 2020 (EDT)
:They have been archived. And they're not in that table because they haven't been settled, but because they haven't been implemented yet. {{User:Bye Guy/Sig}} 15:37, April 2, 2020 (EDT)

== [[Template:proposal notice|This template]] ==
{{talk}}
I was looking through the [[Special: UnusedTemplates]] the other day, and found the proposal notice template, which wasn't labeled as abandoned, so should there be a rule about putting the template on the page? {{User:DarkNight/sig}} 14:22, September 18, 2020 (EDT)
:Well, it's in use now. It certainly isn't being used a lot, but I don't see why we can't keep using it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 14:32, September 18, 2020 (EDT)
::I think it needs to be used more often tbh. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 15:36, September 18, 2020 (EDT)
:::Then can we add a rule stating that if you make a proposal relating to an already created page, you must add the template to it? {{User:DarkNight/sig}} 17:17, September 18, 2020 (EDT)