|
|
| Line 77: |
Line 77: |
| ====Oppose==== | | ====Oppose==== |
| #{{User|Hewer}} I don't really get what the benefit is of removing an infobox designed to convey the information as efficiently as possible. The only argument given by the proposal is that an infobox specific to Super Mario RPG got removed, [[Template:DDRMM song infobox|des]][[Template:DK64 level infobox|pite]] [[Template:DKC level infobox|there]] [[Template:DKC3 world infobox|still]] [[Template:DKJB kingdom infobox|be]][[Template:DKR course infobox|ing]] [[Template:LM ghost infobox|sev]][[Template:LM room infobox|er]][[Template:M+RSOH battle infobox|al]] [[Template:M+RSOH planet infobox|other]] [[Template:M+RSOH quest infobox|game]] [[Template:M&L attack infobox|and]] [[Template:M&S event infobox|series]]-[[Template:M&S episode infobox|spe]][[Template:SSB fighter infobox|ci]][[Template:NSMB2 pack infobox|fic]] [[Template:MSM court infobox|in]][[Template:MKDD kart infobox|fo]][[Template:MGTT character infobox|box]][[Template:MPA quest infobox|es]] ([[:Category:Infobox templates|that wasn't even all of them]]). Also, as an aside, if your plan is to change the design/layout of the infoboxes, why not just make that this proposal instead of needlessly splitting it up? | | #{{User|Hewer}} I don't really get what the benefit is of removing an infobox designed to convey the information as efficiently as possible. The only argument given by the proposal is that an infobox specific to Super Mario RPG got removed, [[Template:DDRMM song infobox|des]][[Template:DK64 level infobox|pite]] [[Template:DKC level infobox|there]] [[Template:DKC3 world infobox|still]] [[Template:DKJB kingdom infobox|be]][[Template:DKR course infobox|ing]] [[Template:LM ghost infobox|sev]][[Template:LM room infobox|er]][[Template:M+RSOH battle infobox|al]] [[Template:M+RSOH planet infobox|other]] [[Template:M+RSOH quest infobox|game]] [[Template:M&L attack infobox|and]] [[Template:M&S event infobox|series]]-[[Template:M&S episode infobox|spe]][[Template:SSB fighter infobox|ci]][[Template:NSMB2 pack infobox|fic]] [[Template:MSM court infobox|in]][[Template:MKDD kart infobox|fo]][[Template:MGTT character infobox|box]][[Template:MPA quest infobox|es]] ([[:Category:Infobox templates|that wasn't even all of them]]). Also, as an aside, if your plan is to change the design/layout of the infoboxes, why not just make that this proposal instead of needlessly splitting it up? |
| | #{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Hewer. |
|
| |
|
| ====Comments==== | | ====Comments==== |
|
Current time:
Friday, May 10th, 09:09 GMT
|
|
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
- "Vote" periods last for one week.
- Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
- All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
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}}.
How to
Rules
- 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. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
- Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
- 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.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
- If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
- If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
- Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
- 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.
- If the administrators 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.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
- Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
- Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must 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]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[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>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 10, 2024, 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 MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.
Rules
- All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. 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 section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
- 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:
- Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
- When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
- Replace Princess Peach: Showtime!#Plays with Sparkle Theater (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Bar Spin to Wire Spin (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
Writing guidelines
Clarify stance on Japanese-derived internal names
The wiki's policy on official name priority seems to suggest that they are only to be used if there is a distinct lack of official English names. However, there's a notable grey area in this policy: what are we intended to do when the internal names are derived from Japanese words, but typed out in English letters? There are a few article titles that come to mind where the official Japanese name is used instead of the internal name: several Super Mario Bros. Wonder enemies, including Suppoko (formerly "Uminoko"), and a few Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat enemies such as Gōrumondo (known as "Garigari" in the files). Uminoko and Garigari are clearly derived from Japanese words, so the question is: should we consider these kinds of internal names Japanese names, or English names?
Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Consider them Japanese names, use names in official material over internal names
- DrippingYellow (talk) I don't think we should consider these English names, even if they are written in English characters for the purposes of file organization.
- Jdtendo (talk) I would even say that "English letters" is a misnomer: those are actually Latin letters, and they are used to write numerous languages besides English. Just because a word is written in Latin script does not mean that it is in English.
Consider them English names, use internal names over Japanese official material
This proposal passing wouldn't really change how we generally do things. Is this just to establish something more formal? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:11, December 31, 2023 (EST)
- Indeed, I'm pretty sure we've HAD a proposal on this very subject before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:03, January 1, 2024 (EST)
- That was the proposal which gave internal names their own tables. This proposal would give more weight to moving pages like Disaster Neko to its Famitsu guide name. SmokedChili (talk) 05:06, January 1, 2024 (EST)
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Disallow the use of individual promotional artwork in character -- history -- sections
An illustration of a video game controller with the words "Image not available" overlaid above it, used as an image placeholder in the Super Mario Wiki
To see what I am talking about, check out Mario's history article. There are a bunch of white/transparent backdropped promotional artwork thumbnails spread across the whole article. They are pointless, why such? Such these mainly pad the article and serve no purpose other than to ornament the section with color or illustrations. Worse, some have captions that state the obvious or lack thereof. In History of Mario (example again) there is a picture of Mario jumping in Super Mario Bros. Wonder section, only for the caption to say: "Mario in Super Mario Bros. Wonder". Others like the images in article's sections for Dr. Mario World and Super Mario-kun lack captions and are just promotional art.
There should be a rule in the (MarioWiki) name space that should probably state that
In the character's respective "History" section, images should have a useful purpose to exist in the section (e.g. clearly explain the role of the character in the game) rather than merely illustrating or decorating the section. Promotional images depicting the character's appearance only are discouraged in order to prevent padding.
This proposal concerns image use in history sections, NOT every section in the character articles. If this proposal wins, these transparent image thumbnails in history sections should be replaced with screencaps, have some sort of plot device depicted concretely, or be captioned usefully. How would it feel?
Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- PnnyCrygr (talk) Per proposal
Sparks (talk) Per PnnyCrygr. Showing screenshots definitely beats past artwork without gameplay.
Oppose
- Koopa con Carne (talk) not all promo artwork illustrates a character's appearance in a game the best it can, but that doesn't invalidate the ones who do. Case in point, the Super Mario Wonder render very concisely shows how Mario was also subjected to that game's unique aesthetic direction; an entire screenshot with various extraneous elements wouldn't communicate that as efficiently. The choice of a particular image for a section should fall under the editors' discretion and, at most, be discussed individually among users.
- Biggestman (talk) Per Koopa con Carne. also it's just more fun to read something if there are images.
- Waluigi Time (talk) While I can agree that these are overused and that screenshots from the game may sometimes be better for illustration than promotional artwork, a full ban from using them for history sections at all is overkill and probably going to do more harm than good. If a piece of artwork isn't illustrating something well, then it can just be replaced, that's the collaborative nature of the wiki.
- FanOfYoshi (talk) This doesn't sit well with me. Per all.
- Swallow (talk) Per all
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC--in plenty of games, screenshots can generally end up super noisy with other elements to them; not just UI, but entire enemies, other items, other characters... A screenshot is only as clear as it is focused on exactly one element, and if literally anything else is in frame, it kinda falls flat. While we can understand maybe replacing, say, Super Mario-kun's image with a scan from the manga itself, there's no real reason in the case Super Mario Bros. Wonder to force a screenshot of Mario in that game, when a render that is very specifically of Mario in that game would do the trick just as well.
- Sparks (talk) Changing my vote to oppose. The characters' artwork does show how the character has evolved over the years as well. Per all.
- Mario (talk) In Mario's page, I did look over the images used in the history section and Ive personally justified their inclusion. We should be trimming images on these longer pages though. We don't need a promo render for every New Soupy Goomba in the history section when Goomba hasn't changed in the slightest.
- Hewer (talk) Per all, this would be a pretty pointless limitation that would hardly solve anything.
- Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
- Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. Having those images does show how a character has evolved over the years, which is an important feature to have. It makes sense as it's supposed to be a history page, and images are history too.
- TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per all
Fine. I consider now that images should be in the history section to illustrate a characters evolution over the games, with one subsection having a promo art for that. Proposal shall be failed inevitably and shall keep all those images. it isn't ripe for cancelling 
PnnyCrygr 
18:17, December 29, 2023 (EST)
Okay, so I'm really not a fan of infoboxes that are solely focused on one game, considering how we had the Super Mario RPG bestiary infoboxes, but when the remake was announced, those suddenly had to be done away with. The 3DS version of Luigi's Mansion is faithful to the original, so there isn't as much infobox clutter, but its purpose, if anything, feels similar to those vertical bestiary infoboxes, like the Super Mario RPG ones that had to be done away with.
If this passes, all instances of the portrait ghost infobox will be replaced with the standard character infobox. Should we do away with the portrait ghost infobox entirely, then? I personally don't think so, and my idea is that we convert it into a horizontal infobox (which should be fine, considering pages like Gobblegut do this), but that depends on whether this proposal passes or fails.
Proposer: Super Game Gear (talk)
Deadline: January 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Super Game Gear (talk): Per my reasons above.
Oppose
- Hewer (talk) I don't really get what the benefit is of removing an infobox designed to convey the information as efficiently as possible. The only argument given by the proposal is that an infobox specific to Super Mario RPG got removed, despite there still being several other game and series-specific infoboxes (that wasn't even all of them). Also, as an aside, if your plan is to change the design/layout of the infoboxes, why not just make that this proposal instead of needlessly splitting it up?
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
You should make horizontalizing an option, then. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:49, January 2, 2024 (EST)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
