|
|
| Line 57: |
Line 57: |
| #{{User|MegaBowser64}} Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all. | | #{{User|MegaBowser64}} Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all. |
| #{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. | | #{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. |
| | #{{User|Ray Trace}} You can guess what my position is considering I was the highlighted comment in this proposal. |
|
| |
|
| ====Oppose==== | | ====Oppose==== |
|
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 11:35 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 9, 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
- Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series, Barrel Blast, or Jungle Beat as related to DKC (discuss) Deadline: May 9th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- 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
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
None at the moment.
New features
Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki link
This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. [[minecraftwiki:]]), especially considering the multitude of subjects in Minecraft's Super Mario Mash-up pack with Super Mario-themed reskins. At the moment, when linking to articles on a Minecraft wiki, it is the most convenient to do so by means of using the {{Fandom}} template to link to the Fandom wiki when there's a higher quality independent alternative available that a majority of the community has left to. I try to avoid adding direct urls into wiki articles in general. If there was an instance where someone added urls to minecraft.wiki throughout every article where it could apply, this would be a multitude of urls that one would have to manually fix, due to the Super Mario Mash-up pack existing.
Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.
- MegaBowser64 (talk) Couldn't hurt, really. Per proposer.
Oppose
Removals
Allow staff warnings to be appealed
See MarioWiki:Appeals
Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:
In general, administrators are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Staff members' votes and opinions are given equal weight to regular users in proposals, featured article nominations, or any other democratic process or informal discussion.
This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged.
People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special.
Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):
- MarioWiki:Appeals: Rule 1 will be removed
- MarioWiki:Administrators: "
While warnings given to users by an admin or patroller cannot be appealed, [T]he other staff members additionally have the ability to overturn any unwarranted warnings or blocks if they see fit."
- Template:Reminder: "If this reminder was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
⬇️changed to⬇️
"If you feel this reminder was undeserved, you may appeal it."
- Template:Warning: "If this warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
⬇️changed to⬇️
"If you feel this warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
- Template:Lastwarn: "If this last warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
⬇️changed to⬇️
"If you feel this last warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
- MarioWiki:Warning policy: "If you were given a warning/reminder for discourteous behavior that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behavior may earn you a warning right off the bat; if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your warning will not be removed.
You cannot appeal a warning given by an administrator or patroller; if one is deemed inappropriately given, it will be handled within the staff team accordingly."
- Q. I don't think I deserve my warning. What should I do?
A. If you feel you don't deserve the warning, you have the option to appeal it as long as the warning in question was not given by an administrator. When appealing warnings, it is best to do so as soon as possible.
Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes.
Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Mario (talk) M.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yes, THANK YOU. After a certain recent incident, I'm also questioning the "don't give reminders to staff" rule.
- Koopa con Carne (talk) I honestly don't recall seeing a (formal) warning issued wrongly by an admin--if that ever happened, it was probably in the very early years of the wiki, when sysop responsibilities weren't outlined as well as today and the young'uns who achieved that position were obviously prone to mishandle it. For the past decade, the admins around here have actually performed their job quite commendably. That said, I very much agree with the principle behind this proposal that the administration shouldn't affect an air of mystique to bar regular users from questioning them; ensuring that users defer to a good conduct and a set of editorial rules, a significant part of which was established by the community at large, doesn't mean that your judgement is impeccable and that your word is final.
- Swallow (talk) This is certainly a lot more fair.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) I do think this is the fairest way to handle formal reminders and warnings.
- Axis (talk) Per proposal.
- Drago (talk) Blocks can already be appealed to the rest of the staff via e-mail, so it makes sense for admin warnings to also be appealable. I do think successful appeals against admin warnings will be rare though.
- MegaBowser64 (talk) Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
- Ray Trace (talk) You can guess what my position is considering I was the highlighted comment in this proposal.
Oppose
Doc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. 
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST)
Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST)
Changes
Create two specific citation templates
This proposal similarly deals with citation templates, but proposes the creation of a few not covered within the scope of a different currently active proposal.
I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki.
I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes:
- {{cite web}} - for anything that links to someplace else on the web, including PDF and digital documents.
- {{cite book}} - for any books, including magazines and manga.
{{cite document}} - for any digital documents, such as PDFs, should there ever be a need to cite from those. (Edit: merged option into cite web)
I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly.
Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately.
Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Create both
- Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal
- PnnyCrygr (talk) Supporting this because of greater convenience and in order to allow for less inconsistencies with citing references.
- DrippingYellow (talk) Per all!
#Hewer (talk) Although I don't see how optional templates that aren't strictly enforced are meant to make references more consistent (feels like they'd do the opposite if anything), I don't care much about consistency of reference formatting so I don't mind this being an option to potentially make it easier.
Create one citation template for all types of citations
- Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary choice.
- ThePowerPlayer (talk) After dwelling upon this for a while, I've realized that citations for books and web pages ultimately share so many of the same parameters that different citation templates would be redundant. The easiest way to create a single template for both citation types is to include optional parameters, which I am confident that MediaWiki can support. On my sandbox, I've created an idea of what the template should look like in the editor, as well as explanations of each field. If either this option or the above option passes, I will make a proposal of my own with further details.
- Hewer (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer.
- Jdtendo (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer. Besides, I think one singular template would be easier to deal with.
Oppose
- LadySophie17 (talk) Even if I would agree with the idea, I can't approve the creation of a template when I don't know what it will look like. I'm open to changing my vote if that changes.
One template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST)
- Wikipedia has them separate. I'm not sure how one template would work conveniently for all instances of citations. Super Mario RPG (talk) 06:56, January 21, 2024 (EST)
- Okay, well I added a separate option for those who prefer a single citation template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie 
(T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)
- Yeah i think cite web can cover for digital documents, come to think of it. I'll strike it out. These templates would probably be the same as what we have, only in template form. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)
As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST)
- No, it's going to be the same way we already cite links, just in template format. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:17, January 22, 2024 (EST)
- What will the contents of {{cite}} look like? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, January 22, 2024 (EST)
- It would somehow integrate the functionality of the two templates. I made that option because Koopa con Carne said that only a single citation template should suffice. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:46, January 22, 2024 (EST)
- My question was not answered. What will you write in the template page to integrate this functionality? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:51, January 22, 2024 (EST)
- Truth be told, I don't know. I originally intended the proposal to have only separate templates as an option or opposition, but since a user said there could be one that suits all, i added as an option. i wouldn't know how to design a template for all types of citations, as the coding, switch, and if expressions for that could be too complex, so if that option passes, I'll probably need someone to help. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:04, January 22, 2024 (EST)
- Though I do know that consistent parameters would be like |last= (for author last name), |first= (first name), |title= (the work being cited). Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:26, January 22, 2024 (EST)
- I agree with Sophie and Mario. At this point, it looks like the "Create both" option will pass, and two citation templates will be created; however, these templates will only be used if they're formatted in an easily accessible way, and the proposal currently provides almost no details about what the templates would actually look like if they were implemented. For this proposal to actually take effect, there needs to be consensus on how the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are implemented and used, not just the existence of the templates themselves. That means that this proposal either needs to be updated with specific formatting guidelines for the templates, or it must be followed up by another proposal detailing such guidelines. If you don't know exactly what the templates would look like, I'm willing to make a follow-up proposal of my own to settle that issue.
ThePowerPlayer 10:45, January 23, 2024 (EST)
- Sure Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:58, January 23, 2024 (EST)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST)
(T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)
