MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 21:55, September 1, 2012 by Shoey (talk | contribs) (Removing this vote because I don't feel it gives an actual reason all it says is that he supports it which is basically saying I agree which would be an invalid vote if another admin disagrees feel free to revert)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page


Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removals of previously added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • 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

Rules

  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. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
  2. 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.
  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. 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.
  6. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
  13. 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.
  14. 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 setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  15. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  16. 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 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.

===[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, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals)

====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.

Rules

  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 section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
  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. (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.
  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

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove level articles of levels that have names

There are no level articles for levels named 1-1 and 2-2, but there are articles for levels named Awesome and such. There have been proposals to create articles for the "non-named" levels, but they have been turned down. We want consistency right? So, I say keep consistency and merge, the "named" levels into their world articles. There isn't anything special about "named" levels besides the name. This level deserves an article as much as this one. So, as all else has failed before, neither of them deserve their own page. The only ones that should be kept are, obviously, places that have more than one level/boss fight in 3D platformers such as, Bob-omb Battlefield, Bianco Hills, Good Egg Galaxy, and Bowser in the Dark World. Easy enough to understand right?

Proposer: Koopa K (talk)
Deadline: September 2, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Koopa K (talk) It's my proposal, so per myself.
  2. Zero777 (talk) Consistency is best in this situation, I see nothing special of the two different level mentioned.
  3. Walkazo (talk) - As I've said many times before (1: most recent, 2, 3, 4, 5: earliest), levels should not get separate articles. Putting the level information on the world articles streamlines navigation and it does away with the whole "named vs. no-name" inconsistency. It also means less stubs and walkthroughs alike; the former because they'll be merged (and hopefully the short sections will then be less daunting to expand than a whole page would be), and the latter because there's a lot less pressure to make overviews long if they're sections rather than pages. However, that doesn't mean that being turned into sections will get rid of info: sections can still be nice and juicy - we just don't want the fluff is all.
  4. Master R.O.B (talk) Per Walkazo
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
  6. YoshiKong (talk) Per all
  7. Blue CosmicToad (talk) Per Walkazo
  8. BoygeyMario (talk) Per Walkazo
  9. Technickal (talk) Just because they have names doesn't mean they're special. Also, per Miss Walkazo.

Oppose

Comments

All those areas you mentioned as keeping their articles could actually be considered to be the 3D equivalents of World articles (while the missions/episodes/whatever that happen in them would be the "Levels"), which makes things a lot more straightforward: Worlds get articles, Levels don't. - Walkazo (talk)

So you want to merge all of the Super Mario World levels, right? GreenDisaster (talk)

Yep. Worlds get Articles, Levels don't. Koopa K (talk)
How about Yoshi's Island levels? World10 (talk)
Please read my previous comment Worlds get Articles levels DON'T. Koopa K (talk)

@Commander Code-8 My thoughts exactly! I was looking at the previous proposals to create articles for levels like 1-1 and 2-2, I thought that they had a pretty good point that levels without names and with names had no real differences, but I also thought the opposers had good points about how levels should not have their own articles, and then I thought why not remove the named levels articles! So that's how I came up with the idea for the proposal (along with some opposers saying "Per all, but I don't think levels, named or not should get articles"). Koopa K (talk)

Puns on the Mario Party articles

This is something that was briefly discussed on the talk page of Mario Party Advance. On the articles that cover the various Mario Party games (listed in the comments section), there is a "Puns" section that list all the minigames that have puns in their names. The question is, should we remove these sections or should we keep them? In my opinion, they should be removed, because while a few of them are puns on songs and English idioms, most of them are, as one person put it, "so obvious an intoxicated monkey could figure them out". It's crude, but it's true. Not to mention that several of us have been going around to articles and removing obvious trivia pieces, so having entire lists of these seems odd to me.

Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk)
Deadline: September 3, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Remove Puns Section

  1. GreenDisaster (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Glowsquid (talk) per GreenDisaster.
  3. Koopa K (talk) Per GD, but shouldn't this be in removals?
  4. Walkazo (talk) - The puns are more appropriately placed on the minigame articles themselves: there's no reason to have them cluttering up the game pages too. (And per Koopa K in regards to the placement of this Proposal.)
  5. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per Walkazo.
  6. Coooool123 (talk) Per all, also, we could just add the info to the trivia sections of the games as well, if it's not there already.
  7. Master R.O.B (talk) Per proposal. These sections are pretty pointless in my opinion.
  8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  9. Neptune99 (talk) We should just change the title, so per
  10. Commander Code-8 (talk) The lists are pretty pointless and the section should just be labelelled 'minigames' anyway

Keep Puns Section

  1. JORDAN DEBONO (talk) Even though some of the puns are plain simple and the less straight forward ones will still be put into the minigame articles, precious work was put into the project, work in which my opinion still doesn't deserve to be deleted. Yes, some are dead obvious, but since the Mario Party series attracts a younger audience, it might not be very obvious to them. EDIT: Per Technickal's comment below.
  2. Technickal (talk) Per my comment.

Comments

And here are the articles that will be affected.

GreenDisaster (talk)

@JORDAN DEBONO It wouldn't be totally deleted just put into the minigame article. Koopa K (talk)

Unless it's one of those obvious ones. And how in the world is the Mario series for ages 3+? Actually, how in the world would a three year-old come onto this wiki? GreenDisaster (talk)
Yea, I don't think a 3-year old would be able to type yet. Koopa K (talk)
Let alone read what's on the articles. Also, what work? The incredibly obvious ones required no work, and everything else only needed a quick Google search to find out. GreenDisaster (talk)
Really obvious ones are like, Bombsketball pun on basketball, duh, Shy Guy Says, pun on Simon Says, again, duh. Koopa K (talk)

Ok look the 3+ thing was just an exaggeration ALTHOUGH all those game have 3+ on the box so you never quite know. And where will the pun article go, inside the minigame article? I don't fully understand this. Also @GreenDisaster, I was offline at the time so I couldn't respond anyone. JORDAN DEBONO (talk)

Yes. If there is a pun in the name of a minigame, the pun is mentioned in the article of a minigame unless it's one of those really obvious ones. The only thing that will be lost is stuff that we were already trying to lose in the first place. GreenDisaster (talk)

Well that does kind of change my initial reasoning although seeing that the odds are against me and Technickal I will continue to support my vote. Thanks anyway, JORDAN DEBONO (talk)

If you're going to continue opposing it, you should at least change your reasoning to acknowledge what I've told you. GreenDisaster (talk)

All right, if you're going to go with that angle... Currently, several of us on the forums have agreed to remove any pieces of trivia that are speculation, dumb, coincidental, or, most relevantly, obvious. And like I said, the obvious ones required no work, and the others just required a quick Google search. Besides, the point of this proposal is to remove the list of puns from the articles. You can create a separate proposal and argue about the obvious trivia there, but right now, it's irrelevant. GreenDisaster (talk)

You know what, this is getting a little too confusing for me. I'll see what Technickal has to say about it. If I like his reasoning, I'll keep my vote. If not, I'll go back to remaining neutral. I just opposed because of all the articles that were going to be affected, and I'm not a fan of huge changes like that. JORDAN DEBONO (talk)
But it won't be a huge change at all. Eleven articles are going to lose a relatively small section that was mostly pointless. GreenDisaster (talk)
I will see what Technickal has to say, and then I will continue from there. JORDAN DEBONO (talk)
I don't see any reason we should delete this. Of course some are ridiculously obvious (Pier Pressure anyone?). But it's fine them being in both articles. I mean, what's the harm? I also agree with Jordan's reasoning, the puns list was part of not one, but ELEVEN articles, and we shouldn't just throw it all away. My point is, the puns list works; there's no point in changing it. Technickal (talk)

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

Merge the various enemy categories from Super Mario World 2 to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island

Edibilis Boringus, Harrassimentia Phlyoverus, Projectilia Ritebakatchia, Ucantia Defeatus, Dudim Phreykunoutonthis, Mostosti Vomitonus. These articles are incredibly short without even being stubs, and could very easily be merged into SMW2. There's really not much else to say.

Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk)
Deadline: September 7, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Merge

  1. GreenDisaster (talk) I'm making a statement indicating that I support my proposal.

Don't Merge

  1. Raven Effect (talk) They are officially named enemy categories and I see no reason to merge them to the SMW2 article.
  2. Koopa K (talk) Per Raven Effect.
  3. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per RF.
  4. Technickal (talk) Per Raven. Wouldn't we have to merge the DKC ones as well?

Comments

None of the articles are a stub, so why merge? Koopa K (talk)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1322826"