MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 01:22, January 10, 2013 by SWFlash (talk | contribs) (→‎Support)
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.
  • All proposals must pass by a majority, including proposals with more than two options.

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. Anyone can comment on proposals whether logged-in or not, but only registered users can create or vote on proposals.
  3. 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.
  4. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. In other words, one option must have 50% + 3 of all votes cast. This means that if a basic two-option 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. Proposals with more than two options require more precise counting of votes to determine if an extension is necessary.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  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. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. 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

Reverse decision to make pages for the non-Mario attraction in Nintendo Land

(welp)

A while ago, there was a a proposal about creating articles for all the attractions in Nintendo Land. Said proposal was made before the WiiU (and thus, the game) was released in any territory and was based on the erroneous assumption that the game is a crossover-which it isn't. The attractions themes are strictly separate (so no Mario enemies appear in the Zelda-themed attraction and vice-versa) and there isn't any interaction in the hub. Having a bunch of stuff from multiple franchises doesn't necessarily make something a crossover, there has to be an interaction between those elements, which Nintendo Land lacks.

Having individual articles for the Mario-relevant attractions is fine, since they're reasonably long and fully-featured games, but having complete ones for the non-Mario ones is coverage creep, akin to making pages for Duck Hunt and Stadium Events because they were on the same cartridge as the original SMB at one point. Quite tellingly, despite the game being bundled with one WiiU model, only two of the eight non-Mario attractions have pages so far, which shows there isn't much interest in writing about things only marginally related to Mario.

So what I propose is simply keep the non-Mario attractions to short (maybe slightly longer than they are now) blurbs on the main Nintendo Land page, and scrap the Octopus Dance and Balloon Trip Breeze pages in the process.

Proposer: Glowsquid (talk)
Deadline: January 9, 2013 23:59 GMT

Reverse decision

  1. Glowsquid (talk) what I wrote, lol.
  2. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) I opposed this last time so i'll oppose it again :).
  3. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) Per Glowsquid.
  4. Aokage (talk) This is a Mario wiki, not a Nintendo wiki.
  5. RandomYoshi (talk) — Per all.
  6. BowserJunior (talk) We need information on them, but not entire pages.
  7. Lindsay151 (talk) Per all!
  8. Pokémon Trainer Red (talk) per akoage; we should put that stuff on Nwiki
  9. Banon (talk) Per proposal, and comments.
  10. SuperFireBowserJr. (talk) This is about Mario, not other Nintendo Franchices.
  11. Toad's Pikmin Army (talk) Per all, and the Octopus Dance and Balloon Trip Breeze pages seem a bit redundant, too.
  12. BoygeyMario (talk) Per PTR. We can rely on other wikis for those parts.
  13. Akfamilyhome (talk)Per BowserJunior. We don't need much info, so pages aren't really necessary. I'm satisfied with how it is now.
  14. Coooool123 (talk) Per all. Makes sense. No need to have non mario stuff on the MARIO wiki.
  15. MegaKoopa (talk) That's fine. But I would leave the page Octopus Dance here, as it's from Game & Watch, and the wiki covers it.
  16. Super Mario Bros. (talk) — Per proposal.

Keep it as is

Comments

Just a thought, but what could be done is that on the Nintendo Land page, there be a link to the page on the wiki that centers on said attractions. (i.e Metroid Blast link to the page on Metroid Wiki, if it exists.) --Toad's Pikmin Army (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2013 (EST)

If this proposal passes, would it be okay to keep the non-Mario artworks? --YoshiKong (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2013 (EST)
yeah. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (EST)
I suppose so, because the artworks are of Nintendo Land's Gallery, and since the article of Nintendo Land isn't being compromised, then neither are the artworks. --Toad's Pikmin Army (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Changes

Reduce the Talk Page Proposal deadline to one week

I propose reducing the TPP deadline to one week. Two weeks is too long in my opinion, since most talk page proposals are for minor changes. They don't require double the time of regular proposals. TPPs aren't noticed any less than regular proposals.

If this proposal passes it would only affect TPPs created after the change.

Proposer: Aokage (talk)
Deadline: January 8, 2013 January 15, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Aokage (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Zero777 (talk) I would of argue that some TPPs are too big to be settled in one week, but then I thought about it for a second and remembered that usually when a TPP is too big, it is usually turned into a proposal on this page. I support it because I don't see why users need more than a week for TPPs; usually, the arguments settle and editing, for the contribution, stop by the fourth or fifth day.
  3. BowserJunior (talk) Per 0777.
  4. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per proposal.
  5. SuperFireBowserJr. (talk) Per Zero.
  6. SWFlash (talk) Two weeks is too much, I agree.

Oppose

  1. Pokémon Trainer Red (talk): two weeks give more users the chance to express their opinion, reaching a more widespread decision
  2. YoshiKong (talk) Per PTR.
  3. Walkazo (talk) - It's not about discussion length, it's about attendance rates. Whereas proposals sit around staring you in the face, if you're not sure about a TPP at first (or don't want to tackle a huge pile of new TPPs all at once) and decide to come back to it, it could take time before you notice the little bullet and remember again (out of sight, out of mind). Also, if someone makes a good point after the initial rush of votes, since TPPs are out of the way, folks are less likely to check back in on them - ideally, a two-week window offers you more time to decide to revisit them than if it was one week long only (but I don't know if that's actually the case). Plus, if the proposer forgets to list the TPP here and no one notices for a few days, there's still a fair chunk of time left to make up for it - if it was only one week, you might have to just tediously cancel and re-start it to ensure you get a fair amount of votes.
  4. Toad's Pikmin Army (talk) Sometimes moving the page X to page Y takes some time to debate about. This also can apply to combining or separating two pages. These are all TPPs, and they can be really long to sort out.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
  6. Megadardery (talk) Per All.
  7. Super Mario Bros. (talk) — Per Walkazo.

Comments

Well, PTR, if these proposals last one week, then why should TPP's be any different? I'm always looking for proposals wherever they are.--BowserJunior (talk)

I'm at odds with this one. On one hand, shortening the proposals would mean less votes... but on the other, it may make people check them more often and take them more seriously if they're only one week...Coooool123 (talk)

Wouldn't the latter cancel out the former? Aokage (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2013 (EST)
Well it could go either way. But then what's the point of having separate proposals if they all last the same amount of time? What's the policy on tpps? Coooool123 (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1392886"