User talk:LumiPlatinum/proposalsheader

Feedback on the current draft (circa september 14th 2026 at 10pm est)

For the opener:

• We're assuming the current time being on the same line and to the side as the header is an error, and not an intentional design decision, because it just looks incredibly unnatural.
• Why is "Key features of Proposals:" its own line? It's not like it's an actual section header. Just put "To participate in a Proposal:" or something like it at the end of the opening paragraph.
• Why is the mention of the templates not in the bullet-pointed primer, and is its own line instead?
• Why is the archive not the very last thing in the opener? instead, that goes to a point explaining how to gauge feedback... for that matter, why isn't *that* part of the primer list?

For the start of How To:

• We don't generally bold for emphasis in policy pages, so we probably shouldn't be doing that on one of the most viewed policy pages. Bolding the step numbers in particular feels really weird, not that bolding a summary of the step would be much better.
• The first step should make it clear that not every proposal needs a discussion beforehand. in fact, many talk page proposals are used to start formal discussions about the subject if one didn't previously happen..
• Steps two-through-four are a mess.
  • The second step basically just boils down to "write the proposal". Would be fine to have this here if not for what Step 3 is, but also, why isn't this where we're explaining what Poll Proposals are?
  • The third step is basically "identify the type of proposal you want to write"... After you already wrote it in step two? A poll proposal isn't a location to put one, either, it's a separate type of proposal, so it's inclusion in this step is, as we previously mentioned, very tenuous. Poll proposals can happen both on Main and Talk Page Proposals. Merges also can be proposed via Talk Page Proposal, even though they impact 2 pages at minimum (though, those that impact 3+ will be put on the main page).
  • ...and then the fourth step boils down to "write and launch your proposal". So these three steps are basically saying. "Write your proposal! Identify what kind of proposal you want to write. Write your proposal!". This is incredibly unclear! Switch steps three and two, and delete step four entirely.
• The phrasing of the fifth step (should be the fourth step) is kinda off. Obviously, you're expected to add it to the Talk Page Proposal list if it's a Talk Page Proposal, and you are allowed to bring up that you have created a proposal when it launches on stuff like the Discord server or the Mario Boards, but the phrasing doesn't really account for messaging people directly and soliciting votes, which is something that is explicitly against our Courtesy policy. (unrelated, but we don't think we've ever seen someone actually use {{proposal notice}}... ever? in the time we've been active?)
• Talk page proposals don't take longer to be archived, they take the usual time. Infrastructure has absolutely changed since whenever that would've been relevant information, we have a giant signal beam on the front page for a precise count of ongoing Talk Page Proposals.
• Quite frankly, the point about the proposer being assumed responsible for implementing changes unless otherwise stated should be emphasized further if it can be.

For the formatting sections:

• Before you ask, while we don't bold text for emphasis on policy pages, underlining is fair game within reason. Reminding editors to properly change the placeholders in the example formatting is, indeed, within reason.
• The part by the Talk Page Proposal formatting section explaining that proposals that span 3 or more pages (not 2, since, well, merges exist) should be removed. This much is already fairly evident in the "how to" section itself.

For Proposal Rules:

• Bolding the rule names themselves is fine, don't worry. That's actually the main reason to bold text in a policy page, it's giving visual clarity.
• Basics - 4. Duration should have a sub-bullet briefly explaining early closures and extensions. Finer details should remain where they are.
• Extensions - 2. Tie should specify that a "tie" is defined by the Threshold, and doesn't need to be a literal 50:50 split.
• Cancellation - 3. Staff Privilege should explain that staff can also opt to cancel a proposal and have it immediately be put into effect, if the changes in question did not require proposal in the first place (such as adding obviously wanted but missing information, or creating a page that falls perfectly within our page creation guidelines).
• Disallowed Proposals - 1. General Improvements should mention that PipeProjects exist, and that founding a new one does actually require proposal.

~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 01:57, September 15, 2026 (UTC)