MarioWiki:Proposals

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.

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.)
 * 4) *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.
 * 5) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 9) 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.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) 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.
 * 13) 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.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) 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.
 * 17) Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
 * 18) 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: 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====
 * 1) [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 " # 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 "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use 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  under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with.
 * 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.)
 * 4) *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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Fire Snake and Bound Fire (Discuss) Deadline: April 30, 2013 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Super Star. (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 2013 23:59 GMT
 * Create separate articles for the Adventure Mode enemies (Discuss) Deadline: May 2, 2013 23:59 GMT
 * Rename Big Red Balloon to (Discuss) Deadline: May 2, 2013 23:59 GMT
 * Rename GAME & WARIO (WarioWare: D.I.Y. Showcase) to GAME & WARIO (Discuss) Deadline: May 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New Features
''None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Allow Featuring/Unfeaturing Article Nominations to pass by majority
I'm pretty sure there has been several near-successful featuring or unfeaturing article nominations over the years that are unanimous, but right at the last moment, someone opposes it, and because of just one user, the entire thing fails. I wanted to change that by adding a rule that featuring/unfeaturing articles nominations must pass by 50% of the votes plus one. (i.e. 5 to 2, 7 to 3, etc.) It will be a better system and also show that more articles are in really good quality or that more articles need a dusting.

Proposer: Deadline: April 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Goomba.
 * 3) Per Goomba.

Oppose

 * No, if we allow this then we are basically allowing fan votes to decide. I've seen archives of Mario for being featured and it was tonnes of supports because everyone likes him. If we allow this then it means some articles like Nintendo 3DS can be featured and at its current state we can't allow that due to a rewrite template and bad images. And also lots of people could support the unfeaturing of an article and then someone could come along and fix it up, but not be able to remove all the supports and a so a perfectly good article gets unfeatured.
 * 1) No articles should only be fa's when they are perfect and everybody agrees to that if an article has votes against it it means that the article is flawed and the flaws should be fixes (or that the votes are outdated in which case ask an admin) allowing articles to be fa'd when they have valid oppose votes on them will only lead to bad articles being featured because they are major characters.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) I would like to add to Marshal Dan Troop's vote (which I per with) that should an article's flaw is incorrect is fixed, we can always vote to remove it (and chances are, the oppose vote will get removed in time). So I think the current system is as fine as it is.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) &mdash; Per all, especially Marshal Dan Troop and Baby Luigi.
 * 6) Per Super Mario Bros.
 * 7) Per King Pikante.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per Marshal Dan Troop.

Comments
@Yoshi876 Fan votes are automatically removed now, so that isn't a problem anymore. 04:58, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
 * But reasons for supporting when featuring an article aren't allowed, so one person could say 'I think the Mario article is good because it has detail and images' and the all the fans would vote and it'd be impossible to see if they were fan votes because they can't leave a comment saying 'I love Mario'.
 * Yeah, I think that it's still a problem: there are still fan votes. 08:01, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
 * It's not much of a problem when one valid oppose vote just tips the side of the FA nomination.

Promotion/Demotion templates
I think that we should have templates to alert a user that they have been promoted/demoted; it provides a quick reference on their talk page when they were changed. (Note that this is not changing the criteria for promotion in any way) The templates would look something like this:

Proposer: Deadline: April 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) You should be alerted when you get promoted,
 * 3) Per Electrical Bowser jr.

Oppose

 * 1) This is something that is absolutely unnecessary.
 * 2) this is completely pointless we have a user rights log for this.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Superflous and tacky-looking.
 * 6) A normal message on your talk page such as "Greeting (user). Due to the quality and frequency of your contributions, the Mariowiki staff has agreed to promote you to Autopatrolled status. Note that this does not carry any additional powers or responsibilities, and that it mostly serves to make patrolling edits easier on our end." is fine enough.
 * 7) It would be annoying and unnecessary, as per Marshal Dan Troop's comment.
 * 8) Per GreenDisaster and Marshal Dan Troop.
 * 9) Promotion/demotion notices take place on the forums nowadays. And if anyone wants to say a congrats on the user's talk page, they can do it without a tacky template.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per all, especially YoshiKong.
 * 14) - Per all. Our current way of doing things is fine.
 * 15) Per everyone, especially both YoshiKong and GreenDisaster.

Comments
Even though I supported, I know this will fail.


 * You are alerted when you are promoted in fact before you get promoted an admin asks you if you want the job then they send you a message like this one
 * By "tacky", do people mean how the draft templates look? And also, they have such templates on Userpedia here and here, and they seem to be working fine.


 * I don't like the second one's design especially. The animated GIF is not the best type of image we need for a template.
 * @LeftyGreenMario How about this? Luiginesog.png
 * It's better, but I doubt this proposal will pass (I also think the notification is not needed, but the outcome is obvious). Hypothetically, I'd choose that one.


 * I actually prefer the "we're cracking you over the head with a hammer and sending you packing like discarded rubble" image: it's far more amusing. -
 * I thought it was a random image that didn't really make sense because Jumpman was promoted by a "power-up." :P

I actually wouldn't be opposed to this sort of thing. Then again I am kind of a sucker for tackiness (in moderation). -

Delete Links to Passed Talk Page Proposals ONLY Until Action Has Been Taken
Normally, when a talk page proposal passes, we delete the link to the talk page proposal in this page. The problem is that this may leave settled talk page proposals not done because the settled proposal basically is out of sight for many users. I remember one talk page proposal settled a long time ago and no action has been taken until years later; it may have been forgotten. Just recently, few users have taken action in splitting enemies in the Subspace Army article, and I'm wondering if people don't realize it or if they are too busy doing something else.

My proposal is this: if a talk page proposal has passed, we should leave the link on the main proposal page until action has been taken according to the talk page proposal. And once the action has followed, then we can remove the link. That way, we know if action has been taken on that proposal or not.

This is necessary so we ensure appropriate action has been taken when a talk page proposal has settled.

This can also apply to more major proposals, but talk page proposals are the ones that need more awareness.

Of course, exceptions can apply.

Proposer: Deadline: May 2, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) We should keep links to the talk page proposal on this page until action has been taken. Then, we should remove them. That way, users know if the actions a talk page proposal requires have been taken.
 * 2) Per LGM.
 * 3) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 4) This is a good idea. I also think we should note when they have passed. For example, if a TPP has passed but has not been applied, we should note that it passed and that the edits have to be done.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Funny, I was just thinking about this the other day. Simply replacing the deadlines with "passed" until the change was made was how TPPs were originally done; I dunno why we stopped doing it that way, but bringing the practice back makes total sense. However, not archiving full proposals would make this page very cluttered, and given their larger scale, many aren't quick fixes to start with, so I think it'd be better to stick to archiving them straight away.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
Isn't this what we normally do, anyways? That was the way it was at least a few months ago.
 * I brought this up because the link to the proposal splitting the Subspace Emissary enemies was deleted, and nobody has really taken action to split the sections into articles, so it appears that we have already done that.

For the bigger proposals, perhaps we could have a page where the passed proposals are moved to an archive specifically for proposals that haven't been taken into action yet? After whatever the proposal wanted to do has been done, it can be moved to the standard proposal archive. It would bring attention to proposals that haven't been put into effect, and wouldn't cause much cluttering. It's just a thought.
 * That sounds like a good idea. Usually, though, bigger proposals get more attention, so more users can do something.
 * A while back, I made a proposal about splitting a bunch of Donkey Kong Country Returns enemies that had 20 support votes and 0 oppose votes. It took nearly two years for all the necessary articles to be created, and that was only after I made a thread over on the forum. Even if the majority of them get attention, there's always one that slips through the cracks.
 * That's why I said it was a good idea. I also said, "Usually". We probably do need to make a section for passed proposals that didn't see action yet.

Accurate titles for files
I have noticed files with, , and. Not only does this decrease professionalism and violate the image policy, but it also makes it more difficult to search for files (e.g. a search for filenames containing "toad" would leave out results if an undescriptive title was used). Even if these images are "only used once or twice", a descriptive title is still more useful.

I am proposing that we go back and rename files used in mainspace/gallery/etc. ('Shroom and userspace would be exempt from this, basically) articles that are breaking the policy, as well as enforcing a standard based and possibly expanding on what is written in the image policy I linked beforehand. I would not be opposed to going back and helping with the work, assuming this proposal passes.

Proposer: Deadline: May 5, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) - Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per proposal, because names should be more clear and appropriate.
 * 5) - I agree, specifically with the part about searching for files. Having fun is good and nice, but when functionality is compromised, that is when priorities must be set.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all. I used to like uploading retarded file names, but now, I don't.
 * 9) While I don't agree with the "professionalism" part (it can be both fun and presentable), we need standard and to-the-point file names instead of creative ones. I stopped making up my own file names a while ago. Also, per Walkazo's comment.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per proposal.
 * 13) Per proposal.
 * 14) &mdash; Per proposal, and Turboo and Kibago specifically.

Comments
At PidgiWiki, we have a standard which works well. What we do is put the subject of the image first, followed by a hyphen, and then the game/event is comes from.

For example: "Bowser Artwork - Super Mario Bros." If there is an alternative image, we use "Bowser Artwork (alt) - Super Mario Bros.", "Bowser Artwork (alt 2) - Super Mario Bros.", etc. This could be a good way to go.-- 05:17, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
 * I don't really like an idea of a naming standard, since that means we have to rename every single file in this wiki to match the standard. I think the best way to go is to at least make sure the image is descriptive, professional, and follows the image use policy. We don't need a single standard for this.
 * If this proposal passes, we're going to be renaming all of the files anyways. I wouldn't be opposed to a standard naming convention, as long as it isn't too convoluted.

If we were the impose the standard, we should eliminate the "having fun part" since there is a degree where you may have fun uploading images, and it all depends on the user's personal idea what "fun" is. I know I might sound a wee bit sarcastic here since I did this crap in the past, but if we were to have more functional image files, we need to be as serious as writing articles on this.
 * Removing the "fun" clause has actually come up in admin discussions before, but we never went back and actually got rid of it, but yeah, I'd agree that it'd be better without such a subjective point. As for the overall standard, I think making a rigid formula we have to follow or else would be a bad idea: as long as we can tell what the images are of, if there's some variety, it's not the end of the world. We could add more specific requests to the current "meaningful name" parameter, such as having the name of the game (or an abbreviation), what kind of image it is (profile art, screenshot, boxart, whatever), and what the image is of (name of the character in the profile, name of the level a screenshot it of and maybe some info about the shot, etc.). However, there should also be emphasis on making the names straightforward: I'd argue that "Bowser art SMB" and "Bowser art 2 SMB" would be preferable to the ones YoshiKong suggested, since they're shorter and don't mess around with punctuation (brackets, dashes) and extra words ("alt"). Similarly, even if a screenshot contains Bowser, Mario and a Podoboo, something like "SMB screenshot end of 1-4" would be easier to use than "SMB screenshot 1-4 Bowser, Mario and a Podoboo"; or if a screenshot is of Mario and a Whacka, "PM screenshot Whacka" would be fine, since the Whacka's the important part. But again, most image names are fine even if they don't follow this sort of "what/kind/game" standard, and renaming them would be excessive and annoying, so even requesting those three things should be more of a guideline than a hard rule. -

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.