MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Proposals.png


Current time:
Monday, August 21st, 07:27 GMT


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 and talk page proposals are archived here.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, 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}}.

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. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in or vote on proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
  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 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.
  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 the total number of voters must appear in a single voting 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, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  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. 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.
  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 (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 8, 2011, 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 Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. 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}}.
  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.
  6. When a talk page proposal passes, replace its deadline with "Passed" but do not remove it from the list below until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of talk page proposals

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

Change the sentence about the About template on MarioWiki:Naming

When disambiguation pages are used, the articles should link to them in {{about}}, but if a disambiguation page is not used, the articles can merely link to the other same-named page.

I find the first part, about articles needing to link to the disambiguation page, to be unnecessary, for the simple fact that the about template is almost always unnecessary in these situations. Let me use Stamp (Mario's Time Machine) as my example:

  1. If a reader ends up there by chance (say, by using Special:Random), they weren't interested in a particular stamp in the first place and there's no need to point them to the disambiguation page.
  2. If a reader ends up there through Stamp (disambiguation), then they were already at the disambiguation page. It's redundant to link to it again.
  3. If a reader ends up there through a link within the body of another article, then the context should be enough to let them know where they're going, and failing that, "Mario's Time Machine" is right in the title. They clicked on the link because they wanted more information about the subject discussed within the article, and even if they had another Stamp in mind, the article quickly shows what it's about.
  4. If a reader searches for "Stamp", they'll first see the most prominent Stamp and then Stamp (disambiguation). Even if they go to "Stamp" first and that's not what they wanted, that page already links to the disambiguation page, which goes back to the second point.

I used the Stamps for my example, but this extends to all similar pages. I simply cannot think of a situation where someone would end up at the page while thinking that they were going to end up somewhere else, and then being confused or disappointed about where they ended up. In these circumstances, the about template is a piece of fluff that doesn't help readers and distracts from the rest of the article. It shouldn't be a requirement to use it on every article when disambiguation pages are involved. It's not as if the about template is useless in all circumstances - for example, Stamp should link to its corresponding disambiguation page, as mentioned above - but it's hardly a necessity for all pages.

I am not proposing to outright remove the about template; I propose to make the following change to the sentence:

When disambiguation pages are used, the articles should only link to them in {{about}} when necessary, but if a disambiguation page is not used, the articles can merely link to the other same-named page.

In short, use common sense and don't shoot your foot off.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: August 23, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Time Turner (talk)
  2. Niiue (talk) Per TT.
  3. Alex95 (talk) - I've sort of been doing this myself already anyway
  4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Sure. I have never really used those pages when I wrote articles of the Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS's levels. I only started using the about template when it was just either Super Mario Maker or the remake that had this set of numbers. Even then, I use this to send the reader to the other place, not the one that had both. In general, the only times that they need to be link the one to the one with many uses is on the most commonly used the most often. Which means that it is in ()s. And if your wondering why I haven't said the name even once, the reason is I don't know the name well enough to type it out very easily. This doesn't mean I don't know what it does. Per proposal.
  6. Toadette the Achiever (talk) I have my doubts, but I think maybe this should specifically apply in certain cases where there aren't enough disambiguated pages (like cases where there are only two pages to be disambiguated). Per all.
  7. Jazama (talk) Per all

Oppose

  1. Megadardery (talk) Redundancy when comes to linking is a delicate matter. If it makes sense to link to other pages similar to the current page, the reader might be interested in reading more. It's not like we are linking a completely irrelevant page. This is especially true for the first case, if the reader stumbled upon this page by pure chance, they are willing to read more, and expanding the number of rational links to similar and related topics is helpful. If the reader reached the specific page he wanted, a million links to other articles will never stop them from reading, so regarding that as a distraction is a poor reason. Also my comment

Comments

Let's take the navigation template by the same reasoning:

  1. If a reader ends there by chance, they weren't interested in any particular page, and there is no need to point them to many other articles that just share the same game.
  2. is a moot point
  3. If a reader ends up there through a link within the body of another article, then unless they blindly clicked a link (brings us back to point 1) or they reached the article they wanted to read (sends us to point 4)
  4. If a reader searches for any article, they'll arrive at it. So? Why even direct them at potential reads?--
    User:MegadarderyUser talk:MegadarderyDashbot.png
    18:46, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
Pardon, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance to this proposal. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:47, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
I was trying to illustrate that redundancy when it comes to linking is not enough reason to remove the link.--
User:MegadarderyUser talk:MegadarderyDashbot.png
18:58, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
Don't we already remove redundant links per the Manual of Style? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:03, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
If you mean reoccurring links, that's a different situation, as it is already linked once in the same article.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megadardery (talk).


I'm going to butt in here and say that one of the reasons why it's not entirely necessary to use {{about}} on pages with identifiers is because the reader might search for the same page title and possibly look for different identifiers. MLPJToadetteWink.gif ToadettetheAchiever 22:43, 19 August 2017 (EDT)