|
Current time:
Wednesday, May 15th, 18:57 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, but they may not vote for every option available.
- 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 with a margin of at least 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 15, 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
- 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
- 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 May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline:
May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add a Composers Subsection to Template:Themes (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Include Rainbow Coaster & Rainbow Downhill back in the Rainbow Road article (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split the contents of the blimp page (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 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
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed.
- Separate the Nintendo eShop paragraph from the 3DS and Wii U pages (Discuss) Passed.
- Separate the Mario Bros. stage from the Smash Bros. stage of the same name (Discuss) Passed.
- Split Bouncing Note from Music Park. (Discuss) Deadline: April 22, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
- Create a Tanooki Mario (character) article. (Discuss) Deadline: April 22, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Junior (II) to Donkey Kong Jr. Math. (Discuss) Deadline: April 23, 2015 23:59 GMT.
- Merge Egg Missile with Egg Bomb. (Discuss) Deadline: April 23, 2015 23:59 GMT.
- Merge Fresh Pasta Bunch with Fresh Pasta. (Discuss) Deadline: April 30, 2015 23:59 GMT
- Move Blue Lava Bubble to Ember. (Discuss) Deadline: April 30, 2015 23:59 GMT
- Determine if Wanda is a Template:Fakelink or Sprixie. (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 2015 23:59 GMT
- Merge Piranhacus Giganticus with Big Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 2015 23:59 GMT
- Move Boss Bass Super Mario 64 DS info over to Bubba's page or Merge the articles. (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 2015 23:59 GMT
- Move Fire Chomp Super Mario 64 DS info over to Kuromame page or Merge the articles. (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 2015 23:59 GMT
- Merge Spiny Fish with Spiny Cheep Cheep. (Discuss) Deadline: May 5, 2015 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Create Template:organization-infobox
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use Template:species-infobox (Snowmad and Tiki Tak Tribe were the pages I first noticed this on), listing species employed by the organization as sub-species, which looks...odd. Besides, we have infoboxes for other things, like locations, organizations aren't any less important.
Proposer: Binarystep (talk)
Deadline: April 23, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Binarystep (talk) Who opposes their own proposal?
- Stonehill (talk) That makes sense. Per Binarystep.
Oppose
We already have one.--Vommack (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
- That's for RL companies, so it wouldn't be an even worse fit. Although in all honesty, as long as people aren't stupid and only use the "first/latest appearances" and "notable members" headers and not the ones that make no sense, {{species-infobox}} works fine. But I also suppose a different template wouldn't hurt, seeing as we also have {{character-infobox}}, {{item-infobox}}, {{location-infobox}} and even {{form-infobox}}, among others. But what exactly do you (Binarystep) want as the new template? It's not good enough to just ask us to approve something without even a vague clue about what you have in mind. - Walkazo 17:23, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
- Oh. Yeah, that makes more sense than what I was thinking. The species infobox still work alright though.--Vommack (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
- Maybe we should use the same template as the one which is used by the Koopalings for the Tiki Tak Tribe, but for the snowmad, I'm not sure...--
(TALK) 17:27, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
I'm not good enough at HTML to make an example, but here are the parameters I'd want it to have:
- leader - the character in charge of the organization (e.g. Bowser for Koopa Troop)
- members - notable characters employed by the organization (e.g. Bashmaster for Snowmads)
- employed_species (probably needs a better name) - species frequently employed by the organization (e.g. the various Tikis for the Tiki Tak Tribe)
- first_appearance - self-explanatory
- latest_appearance - self-explanatory
Binarystep (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
- "member_species" might be a better name. Also, for "leader", what happens if leadership changes over the course of a game or going from backstory to a game? And I don't mean things like Bowser getting temporarily usurped but getting back control of the Koopa Troop by the end - more like odd situations like the Shroobs where Princess Shroob was more of an interim leader for the majority of the game, or coups that actually stick. Would both leaders get listed, with parenthesis saying "(first)"/"(former)"/"(current)"/"interim", etc.? And in which case, should that header perhaps read "leader(s)" (but still be coded "leader" for simplicity)? - Walkazo (talk)
- Either list the most recent leader only, or list multiple ones with brackets to clarify. Binarystep (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
Use "wide image" templates for level maps and the like
In pages about levels or worlds such as this, this and this, since the images showing the maps are wide, they are displayed in a very small size, making them hard to see clearly unless you click the image.
Well, Wikipedia has a {{Wide image}} template, which can be useful for cases like these. We could use both the 100% wide and 45% (or another size) wide variations, depending on the case.
Proposer: Mr. Ice Bro. (talk)
Deadline: April 25, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
Support
- Mr. Ice Bro. (talk) My proposal.
- Binarystep (talk) Per Mr. Ice Bro.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per proposal: scrollboxes for images can be pretty handy.
- Andymii (talk) I love this idea! It makes it so one does not have to click on an image to enlarge it; plus, you get a clearer image.
- Burningdragon25 (talk) A great idea indeed! I'll approve this proposal with a per all!
Oppose
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Merge post-Special Zone enemies or Split Goomba (SMW:SMA2) and Pokey (SMW:SMA2)
It seems a little incongruous that the Super Mario World enemy skins are split but the Super Mario Advance 2-exclusive ones are not. At the same time, besides the alternate names in the SNES version, there isn't any real sign to consider these different enemies. I think the case for merging is stronger, but I'll leave the option to instead split the rest of them.
Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk)
Deadline: April 24, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Merge post-Special Zone enemies to original enemy articles
- LinkTheLefty (talk) It was always an aesthetic difference to begin with, and merging eliminates at least one conjectural-titled article.
- Time Turner (talk) It's true that some sources individualize them, namely the SMW credits and the Mario Mania guide, but these are nothing more than reskins. There are absolutely no differences between them besides the way they look. Also, if them being recognized as individual enemies is what we use as our justification, that'd be quite a slippery slope to follow, considering other enemies that are also individually recognized (case in point, the Green/Red Koopas).
- Burningdragon25 (talk) I'm going to approve this one because they are part of the original enemies so, per all!
- SuperYoshiBros (talk) I was actually planning on proposing this a while ago, but never got around to it. Per all.
- Binarystep (talk) Per all.
Split Goomba (SMW:SMA2) from Galoomba and Pokey (SMW:SMA2) from Pokey
Leave alone
Exactly how many articles are being affected here? Merging a lot of uniquely-titled and different-looking things could potentially lose us search traffic... And please provide links, instead of expecting everyone to run around searching for the relevant pages and sections themselves: it's literally part of Rule 1 at the top of the page. - Walkazo (talk)
- I don't think the search traffic argument holds water in this case. People aren't googling en-masse for obscure enemies sprite-swaps featured in one game, and if they do, they're very likely to have heard of the wiki through other means. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
- @Time Turner - Mario Mania is kind of vague about it, although it does imply that a bit with the "A New Cast" heading at the end.
- @Walkazo - If we go with the first option, the following articles are affected: Jumping Pumpkin Plant, Pidgit Bill, Mask Koopa, and Para Mask Koopa (the latter being the conjectural one I mentioned). If we go with the second option, it will keep these pages split and also add the enemies changed in the Game Boy Advance port - the sunglasses "Goomba" (as it was called) and its derivatives, and the stone-like Pokey. The third option, which I've mistakenly left out before, just keeps everything the way it is. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
Staying neutral for now... On one hand, they look different and are officially named. On the other hand, the guide that named them is the same guide that acted like every behavior of Chargin' Chuck was its own species. If these are going to be merged, shouldn't the different types of Boo Buddies (except Block, as it does something other than move differently) be merged as well? Binarystep (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
- Chargin' Chucks and Boo Buddies could also probably be addressed at some point as they might be considered another example of incongruity, but this proposal is specifically about the enemies whose graphics change by completing the Funky course, not including ones given separate identification in guide material. It's not quite the same thing, especially since Chargin' Chucks and Boo Buddies have different interactions with the player. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2015 (EDT)
Stop Listing Sub-Species on Generic Real-World Species Pages
I've noticed that a lot of species pages (like Cooligan or Snaps to give two examples) are listed as "sub-species" of generic real-world species (e.g. Bee, Crab, Penguin), instead of being labeled independent species. At first, this makes sense, as they're clearly based on said species, but if you consider that we don't call Koopas a sub-species of Turtle or Goombas a sub-species of Mushroom, it starts to look inconsistent. I've also noticed the reverse happening, where real-world species articles have long sub-species sections consisting of every species that resembles it, even though that is literally not what "sub-species"/"species origin" means at all. While I'm not saying we should delete all real-world species pages (though the ones that consist of "background thing what looks like species" should probably be removed), I don't think we should list species from the games as being directly related to them, as there's a difference between a real-life inspiration and an in-universe relation.
tl;dr not everything has to be a subspecies of something, infoboxes don't have a minimum length.
Proposer: Binarystep (talk)
Deadline: May 3, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Binarystep (talk) Per my proposal.
- Time Turner (talk) Per Binary.
- Burningdragon25 (talk) Per both on this case!
- Magikrazy (talk) per
- Stonehill (talk) Per Binarystep.
Oppose
Note that real-world species could still have "Related Species" sections, and list species based on them there. Binarystep (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2015 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
